Francis Beckwith, Still a Protestant at Heart

Here's a bit of private interpretation from a Mega-Convert:

"A former professor of mine, a well-known Lutheran theologian, told me in private conversation several weeks ago that he was upset that I had returned to the Catholic Church while in the middle of my service as president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), arguing that my public reversion could have harmed ETS irreparably. Because it was a matter of conscience that forced me into the confessional earlier than I had planned,[1] I was tempted to respond like the founder of his denomination did at the Diet of Worms, “There I stood, I could do no other.” The irony was indeed delicious, but I simply thanked him for his counsel and bid him peace. Apparently, unlike the Word of God, schism is not a two-edged sword." [source]

Here's some Choice questions for this super-convert:

When the Roman Catholic apologist asks, “how can you be certain that you are in the truth since all you have to go on is your own fallible private judgment that your church is right?,” we should counter with a similar question: “How can you be certain that you are in the truth since all you have to go on is your own fallible private judgment that Rome is right?”

When the Roman Catholic apologist asks, “How do you know you’ve picked the right denomination?, we should respond by asking, “How do you know you’ve picked the right infallible interpreter?”

Luther on the Immaculate Conception: A Response to Scott Windsor (Part One)

I. Introduction
Roman Catholic apologist Scott Windsor has put forth a response to my view that Luther did not hold a lifelong belief in Mary's immaculate conception. I appreciate that Scott took some time to look into this topic. It appears he actually did work through at least some of the evidence surrounding this issue. For that, I'm grateful. Many other Roman Catholic bloggers / apologists simply cut-and-paste citations from Luther or other apologists. Often these citations are poorly documented, an obvious sign the actual contexts from which the quotes were taken were never read. It appears Mr. Windsor did attempt to go beyond this usual approach, at least by interacting with some of my writing on this subject. I've saved a copy of what he posted on his blog as of 12/19/10, and it is to that which this response is based.

This is a complicated matter, one in which I've spent considerable time on. I have, not because it actually has any important significance as to Luther studies. Whether Luther did or did not hold to a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception really doesn't matter to me. Luther held to many things in which I would disagree. If it so happens he held to lifelong belief in Mary's immaculate conception, this would be simply another point in which I would disagree with Luther.

Rather, I've studied Luther's alleged Marian beliefs because of their polemical use by Roman Catholics. The very article Mr. Windsor is now revising stated "the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been 'covered up' by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." Typically Luther is vilified by many Roman apologists. When it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling; particularly since Luther’s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach. With Luther's Mariology, I've studied and written on this topic often only to demonstrate Romanists do not go deep into history, and that articles (like the one Mr. Windsor is now revising) serve as propaganda.

For all his efforts, Mr. Windsor is mistaken in his conclusion that Luther held to a life long belief in Mary's immaculate conception.

II. Sources
My initial reading of Mr. Windsor's article left me wondering if Scott actually took the time to read Luther in context or if he simply relied on the work of others. For instance, I noted that Scott cited Luther via my articles (LW 31:172-173; LW 32:79-80;Martin Luther, D.Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke 45:51 quoted in Martin Luther, What Luther Says, Vol. I, 152). That's flattering, but how does Scott know if I cited any of these sources correctly? This is a major problem with many of Rome's apologists. They simply don't take the time to track down the sources and read them for themselves. He also cited William Ullathorne, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (Benziger Bros., 1904) for a snippet of Luther's 1527 sermon "On The Day of Conception of the Mother of God." In a recent blog article (in which I made Scott aware of) I noted many primary sources this sermon could be found in (including an entire English translation). Why not track down the sermon and read the entire context? For a religion whose apologists claim to go "deep in history" they often certainly don't when it comes to reading Luther's writings in context for themselves.

III. Scott's View of Luther and the Immaculate Conception
Mr. Windsor believes that Luther did not abandon a belief in the immaculate conception: "what we have seen here, even using Mr. Swan's own citations, is that Luther did indeed have a life-long belief in the Immaculate Conception." Unfortunately, Scott has committed the same error that some of his fellow apologists have made. He's mis-read contexts, not considered all the evidence, and not presented any clear positive proof that Luther held to the immaculate conception for his entire career. This evidence was fully available to him via blog entries I gave him links for. It appears he looked at a few of them, and ignored the rest.

A. The 1527 sermon by Luther on "The Day of Conception of the Mother of God"
I've written extensively on this sermon here: Luther: the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin. It is beyond dispute that Luther actually deleted his comments on Mary's immaculate conception that Romanists are so fond of quoting. Commenting on this, the editors of Luther's Works state:

Originally, Luther may have held something similar to the Thomist position, put forward in the Festival Postil (1527), sermon on the conception of Mary, WA 17/2:287-288, though the material in question seems to be solely the responsibility of its editor, Stephan Roth (d.1546), and was removed from the 1528 and subsequent editions: see StL 11:959-961; Baseley 1:50-51. In his later preaching, Luther affirmed that Mary had been both conceived and born in sin and connected her purification from sin with the work of the Holy Spirit at the time of Christ's conception: see e.g., Luther's sermons for Christmas Eve 1539, WA 47:860, and 1540 WA 49:173; Dufel, Luther's Stellung zur Marienverehrung, pp. 163-174, 196-97; Kreitzer, Reforming Mary, pp. 110-11 [LW 58:434-435].

Not only was the relevant section deleted (which may not have been written by Luther at all), it was actually re-written by Luther (a translation which can be found in Joel Baseley, the Festival Sermons of Martin Luther [Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005] pp. 42-51). Thus, the only clear positive evidence that Luther believed in Mary's immaculate conception was deleted and revised by Luther himself.

When one reads the revised sermon in full, Luther's view of "two conceptions" isn't at all certain. In fact, the sermon is quite harmonious with Luther's earlier comments that belief in the immaculate conception isn't clear or necessary: "Today we celebrate the feast of how the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin, a feast that has created a great deal of apathy, quarrelling and discord among the monks, without any benefit or good, since there is not one letter about it in the Gospel or anywhere else in Scripture." Mary's immaculate conception may be interesting speculation , but it "was not commanded of us nor needful for us to know."

After spending the majority of the sermon on the topic of sin, Luther closes the sermon by speculating on how some people have approached the topic of original sin and how Mary could've possibly been exempt from it, outlining a speculative view on two conceptions. At the end of the revised sermon, Baseley's translation reads, "But that God did anything unique in her conception is not revealed to us in the Scriptures and so there is also nothing here to be definitively believed or preached. But speculation concerning this will go on." There the sermon ends, as Luther intended it. That specualation Luther saw as destracting to important biblical topics- he stated this in this very sermon. In fact, Luther went on to reject the festivals of Mary's Immaculate Conception, December 8, and her Assumption, August 15.

True, as Windsor states "Abandoning the statements cannot be equivocated to denying the statements." What would verify that the deleted comments remained Luther's view would be corroborating evidence from his later writings. As I've stated to Romanists repeatedly, I've not seen any such clear evidence. Rather, the evidence proves something quite different, in fact in one writing, Luther agrees with Staupitz' comment that the Immaculate Conception is a fraud.

B. Luther's view: Christ was conceived of a virgin without sin
The remainder of Scott's evidence looks at Luther's later comments and interpreting them to be speaking of Mary's purification rather than Mary being purified at Christ's conception. Isn't there simply a clear statement from Luther which conception he's talking about? Why indeed there is, and it was cited in one of the very web pages of mine Scott read and cited from. I also provided him with another link addressing the same information.

Luther's later view appears to be that at Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood. Here's an extended selection from Luther that I think should clearly present my view. This selection is from Luther's lectures on Genesis. The editors of LW hold the majority of material pertaining to Luther's exposition of Genesis 38-44 dates from 1544, it is possible though some of the material may have been presented in November 1543. Luther is commenting on Genesis 38 and the account of Judah and Tamar. He expounds on the reasons the Bible includes such scandalous accounts. One of the reasons he states as follows:

In the second place, the Holy Spirit considered the Messiah and the birth of the Son of God; and this is the more important reason. For it was necessary for this lapse to take place in the very line in which the Son of God was to be born. Judah, the very eminent patriarch, a father of Christ, committed this unspeakable act of incest in order that Christ might be born from a flesh outstandingly sinful and contaminated by a most disgraceful sin. For he begets twins by an incestuous harlot, his own daughter-in-law, and from this source the line of the Savior is later derived. Here Christ must become a sinner in His flesh, as disgraceful as He ever can become. The flesh of Christ comes forth from an incestuous union; likewise, the flesh of the Virgin, His mother, and of all the descendants of Judah, in such a way that the ineffable plan of God’s mercy may be pointed out, because He assumed the flesh or the human nature from flesh that was contaminated and horribly polluted.

The scholastic doctors argue about whether Christ was born from sinful or clean flesh, or whether from the foundation of the world God preserved a pure bit of flesh from which Christ was to be born. I reply, therefore, that Christ was truly born from true and natural flesh and human blood which was corrupted by original sin in Adam, but in such a way that it could be healed. Thus we, who are encompassed by sinful flesh, believe and hope that on the day of our redemption the flesh will be purged of and separated from all infirmities, from death, and from disgrace; for sin and death are separable evils. Accordingly, when it came to the Virgin and that drop of virginal blood, what the angel said was fulfilled: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and overshadow you” (Luke 1:35). To be sure, the Messiah was not born by the power of flesh and blood, as is stated in John ( cf. 1:13): “Not of blood nor of the will of a man, etc.” Nevertheless, He wanted to be born from the mass of the flesh and from that corrupted blood. But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person. Therefore it is truly human nature no different from what it is in us. And Christ is the Son of Adam and of his seed and flesh, but, as has been stated, with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception and the pure and holy birth by which we were to be purged and freed from sin. [LW 7:12]

The name of the wife was Tamar... it is necessary to mention her, and this chapter is written for her sake alone; for she is a mother of the Savior, God’s Son, for whose sake all Holy Scripture has been given, in order that He might become known and be celebrated. From this Tamar, then, the Messiah was descended, even though through an incestuous defilement. Him we must seek and acknowledge in this book...Christ alone is a son of the flesh without the sin of the flesh. Concerning all the rest the statement “who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh” (cf. John 1:13) remains immovable.[LW 7:17]

But Judah begs that he may be permitted to go in to Tamar, that is, to have intercourse with her—for thus Holy Scripture is accustomed to speak—and nothing is added as to where they perpetrated the incest, since Moses said that she sat in an open place and in sight of passersby. I do not think that they cohabited in public like the Cynics; but I suppose that perhaps they withdrew into a small house, a cave, or a nearby wood. And there she was made pregnant by the most shameful act of incest, and the flesh from which Christ was to be born was poured from the loins of Judah and was propagated, carried about, and contaminated with sin right up to the conception of Christ. That is how our Lord God treats our Savior. God allows Him to be conceived in most disgraceful incest, in order that He may assume the truest flesh, just as our flesh is poured forth, conceived, and nourished in sins. But later, when the time for assuming the flesh in the womb of the Virgin came, it was purified and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you.” Nevertheless, it was truly flesh polluted from Judah and Tamar.

Therefore all these things have been described for Christ’s sake, in order that it might be certain that He really had to be born from sinful flesh, but without sin. Accordingly, David says this of himself in Ps. 51:5: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity.” This is said correctly also of the flesh of Christ as it was in the womb of Tamar, before it was assumed and purged. But this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, in order that He might be able to bear the punishment for sin in His own body.[LW 7:31]

Here, therefore, the Blessed Seed is described. It is descended from the accursed, lost, and condemned seed and flesh. Nevertheless, It Itself is without sin and corruption. According to nature, Christ has the same flesh that we have; but in His conception the Holy Spirit came and overshadowed and purified the mass which He received from the Virgin that He might be united with the divine nature. In Christ, therefore, there is the holiest, purest, and cleanest flesh; but in us and in all human beings it is altogether corrupt, except insofar as it is restored in Christ. [LW 7:36]

Conclusion
I recently went through this citation battle with another Roman Catholic apologist. I was mocked, insulted, accused of distorting facts, charged with blasphemy, and even the evidence I provided deemed "correct" was compared to a broken clock correct twice a day. All this until I presented the quote above from LW 7. Then, all went silent, and a sparse admission was written that my detractor's view had "changed."

The above extended section from Luther was enough to silence this other apologist on this topic. Scott needs to read this selection closely, and then return back to the comments in which he attributes the purifying to Mary at her conception. Scott's position simply is a mis-reading of the texts. I think if he goes back and rereads the texts and looks closer with Christ as the subject, he'll see that (according to Luther) it's at Christ's conception that Mary is purified.

I have no doubt that Scott is a man of integrity, and that he'll make the necessary corrections to his entries. I don't find him to be anything like the other apologist, who, when confronted with this information, has simply kept calling me names while benefiting from my research.

“Development is just a self-fulfilling prophecy”

Here's an exchange I found interesting:

Arturo Vasquez Cites Eamon Duffy citing Newman:

“We have come to a climax of tyranny,” he wrote. “It is not good for a Pope to live 20 years…. He becomes a god, [and] has no one to contradict him”…

http://arturovasquez.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/for-a-truly-subversive-newman/

Arturo Vasquez:
I think [Catholicism] is the only religion in the modern Western world that merits the name, in that it tries to mix universality and systematic rigor with plurality and local manifestations of the supernatural. Do I think it works? No. But it is still a noble try. As I have written above, I am pessimistic to the point that I think the whole thing is on the verge of collapse, at least a major section of it.

Michael Liccione:
I’ve long thought that the attitude you share is an all-but-inevitable reaction to the scandal of particularity, which is really the difficulty, for many, of seeing the mutual inherence of the universal and the particular. There’s no way to “get it” from the outside; one has to live it from within the tradition, as you clearly recognize. Your own contribution is to point out that “the outside” is now “inside” the Church. I agree that such is the case for many individuals; but to conclude that’s it the case for the Catholic thing as such, one must assume that its intensional reality is reducible to its extensional reality. Only, it isn’t. And that fact lies at the core of the Catholic thing.

Arturo Vasquez:
Well, you can win an argument by addressing reality or you can do it by moving goal posts and saying you kicked the winning field goal that way. If there is something that I have concluded about Mike & friends’ argumentative style is that they tend to argue using the latter method. “Catholicism” will win as an institution because “Catholicism” is invincible. The antagonism is always outside of the Platonic definition of “Catholicism” floating in the ether. How things look in reality, well, your mind is playing tricks on you. Don’t pay any attention to that. God forbid we should argue that change exists in the very idea itself. Otherwise, the sky would fall, we would have to curl up in a fetal position in the corner, dogs will marry cats, etc.

Post-Trent Variance

Donald Prudlo writes on the variance within post-Trent Catholic Scriptural interpretation, using Matthew 16:18 as a primary example:

The creative element in post-Trent biblical theology cannot be underestimated. Though Catholic scriptural scholarship of the period was very engaged in controversy with the reformers, it was also in the midst of one of its most innovative eras. As shown, spirited controversies took place within Catholicism that produced substantial advances in theology. Catholic thinkers did not simply respond to Protestant challenges; rather, they were actively delving deeper into scriptural sources. One prominent example was the controversy over the interpretation of the word "petra" in the famous papal proof-text Matthew 16:18: "I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Certainly Catholics reacted to Protestant interpretations of this passage (which tried to minimize the person of Peter, and especially of his successors), but spirited discussion also took place within Catholic circles, and the tradition attached multiple meanings to the word "petra." Erasmus, who interpreted "petra" not as Peter, but as a reference to Peter's confession of faith, was not alone. Several other Catholic writers also adopted this terminology, notably Jean d'Arbres (d. 1569), a strongly anti-Calvinist writer. John Major (1467-1550) and Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples both interpreted "petra" as Christ himself. In doing this, they were faithful to the common patristic and medieval interpretation of the text. However, a surprisingly new interpretation adopted by Cajetan and Sixtus of Siena made "petra" stand for Peter. Surely they had polemical reasons for this move, which served to undergird the power of the papacy, but nevertheless such a reading was innovative, novel, and quite literal. Indeed, these differing positions were not necessarily opposed. Cardinal Jacques-Davy Duperron (1556-1618) responded to a pamphlet by King James VI of England by stating that interpreting "petra" as faith and as Peter were both admissible readings, corresponding to the ancient division of senses in the scriptures. These examples should clearly demonstrate the problem of trying to articulate a common position among Counter-Reformation scriptural theologians. Such controversies indicate that Catholic thought was, ironically, at once reactionary and innovative.¹

________________________

1. "Scripture and Theology in Early Modern Catholicism," in Christian Theologies of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction, ed. Justin Holcomb (New York University Press, 2006), 147.

A Woman Rides The Beast

"The reason started when James Swan posted his remarks on this thread about Dave Hunt. I google a search to see why Swan didn't like Hunt and I guess is because they disagree on some theological points. I just don't like it when people post insults/opinions without presenting all the facts why that person is wrong." [source]

"I did a google search to see why Swan had a problem with Hunt and you are right. It has to do with the whole Calvinist debates with Hunt. That explains why the potshot at Hunt." [source]

What provoked this? someone was recommending Jack Chick's web site and Dave Hunt's A Woman Rides The Beast over on the CARM boards. Thus ensued "I have it, great book" versus "I have it, terrible book" saga. I had simply stated, "I have spent a number of years defending the Gospel and the Scriptures against Romanism. I would not endorse any work against Romanism by either Mr. Chick or Dave Hunt." I had forgotten about this thread and my comment until a Private message alerted me to visit this now ten page discussion. Re-entering the arena, I stated:

I was raised on Chick tracts. Somewhere in my house, I probably have a few of them still laying around. I'm quite sure I still have the Alberto comic books somewhere. As a young 1970's kid, there was a lot of speculation and talk about the soon-to-be end of the world. The signs were all in place. Armageddon was coming...because Israel was now a nation again and "this generation will not pass away... etc." 1980 was quickly approaching! Get ready for the rapture! The Chick tracts back then put all the signs together in a helpful comic book form for young minds to easily digest. Not to mention the fact that the Jesuits had secretly infiltrated the evangelical church.... according to Mr. Chick's publications. Scary stuff. But then in the mid 1980's (if I recall), Cornerstone Magazine completely destroyed the Alberto story. Well, the 1980's came and went. Israel is still a nation, and the generation is quickly passing away, and, well all the "forty years" stuff was just wrong.

In the 1980's Dave Hunt became a popular Christian author with his Seduction of Christianity (and follow up books). I have a number of his books, and in fact, his newsletter came in the mail today. ("Born That Man No More Die" (12/10). He likewise reads the signs of the times. Yes, I've been through his "A Woman Rides the Beast." I'll even admit to seeing the movie version he released.

Those of you who know a bit about the subjects I enjoy know of my Martin Luther related studies. Luther was convinced it was the end of the world and of Rome's role in the coming apocalypse. Well, he was wrong. Here we are, hundreds of years later. He expected the end within a few decades from the 1540's.

I don't follow the approach that Roman Catholicism is in error and dangerous because of prophecy and apocalyptic literature. Those who attempt to refute Roman Catholicism by interpreting the book of Revelation are simply setting themselves up for embarrassment.

I don't think everything Mr. Hunt puts forth is in error. However, his apologetic material is dipped in prophetical interpretation. In my opinion, this is not a wise method. I've studied enough of the history of prophecy and Dispensationalism to understand those who do this have to continually read the signs of the times, and then readjust their apologetics.

Rome is indeed in error, and can be demonstrated to be so over the central issues of authority and the Gospel. This is where the battle lies. I can recommend a number of helpful resources that don't have to continually reevaluate the signs of the times.. and then put forth "shock" type of stuff.

Here are a few books currently on my desk:

James White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minnesota: Bethany House, 1996)

James White, Scripture Alone (Minnesota: Bethany House, 2004)

James White, The God Who Justifies (Minnesota: Bethany House, 2001)

David King & William Webster, Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, (three volumes) (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 2001)

Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers, A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists (New York: Reformation Press, 1999).

Eric Svendsen, Upon This Slippery Rock: Countering Roman Catholic Claims to Authority (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2002)

Eric Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2001)

Eric Svendsen is not a "5 point Calvinist," so so much for my alleged bias against non-Calvinists. Also, Mr. Hunt made some good points in his Seduction of Christianity book. I read it, and own it. [That is, Dave Hunt isn't completely wrong on everything].

For those Protestants that have an interest in Roman Catholicism, take a look at your methodology. Are you defending the gospel, or are you speculating about which woman is riding the beast? Don't ignore the central truths of the faith to irritate your Roman Catholic acquaintances with speculative prophecy. Stick with defending the authority of scripture and the perfect righteousness of Christ. These issues don't require reading a newspaper in one hand, and the Bible in the other. They require reading a Bible with both your hands, and all of your mind.

Then came the following dialog:

Well, I endorse Dave's book. Many of the reviews reflect my own opinions that his book is well referenced. His book is where I learned about the Vatican Bank Claims. I followed the book's references to learn more about this history through the Orthodox websites. Years ago when I was Catholic I remember hearing about this in the news but then I didn't pay attention to it all that much. So it was interesting to go back and research it for myself to discover the Vatican's involvment in this criminal act during 1930-40's. His book addresses the dark role of the Roman Church down through the centuries up til the last century.[source]

Once again, I don't think everything Mr. Hunt puts forth is in error. But, he often misses the battle. The battle is over the Gospel & Scriptures. I could care less about Rome's bank accounts.

You are right the battle is over the Gospel and Scriptures. Hunt is exposing the darkside of what Roman Catholicism truly is. That needs to be known too. If you truly knew what the Vatican Bank Claims were about you wouldn't have made the flip comment "I could care less". Thousands of innocent men, women, children died at the hands of Franscican priests and even nuns because they were Orthodox Christians who wouldn't convert. The victims were brutally slaughtered even for their gold teeth. The money was sent to the Vatican. [source]

What you consider a "flip comment" actually has reasoning behind it.In terms of argumentation and apologetics, I really don't care about Rome's bank accounts. While it might be interesting and correct information, I try to completely throw out this type of stuff in discussion with Roman Catholics. Here's why: let's say you present all this information about how bad Rome's papacy is, in terms of moral behavior. Your Roman Catholic opponent (for lack of a better word) could respond by presenting information about corrupt churches or behavior in Protestantism.Try to keep this rule keep in mind: if you use an argument and it works against your own position when applied to your own position, the argument is not valid. Once again, stick with the real battle: Gospel, Scripture, and authority.

I try to do that too. Howeverl Catholics have their own interpretation of the Gospel and Scriptures plus their authority is "the Church" they will not reason with non-Catholics on Scriptures either. It also doesn't hurt to read books like Hunt's to get the background history of Roman Catholicism and the papacy. I've learned stuff I never knew about before about my former religion. [source]

Never under estimate the power of the word of God. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). The books I mentioned earlier will provide you with a number of ways of dialoging with Roman Catholics over the Gospel, the Scriptures, and authority. Indeed, reading historical treatments of any subject is worthwhile. I tend to read historical treatments from both Protestant and Roman Catholic authors. No historical treatment is perfect, and if Roman Catholics have done research on Mr. Hunt's materials, we should listen to what they say, honestly evaluate their criticisms, and then take or give correction graciously.

Luther: It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "The Commandments":

"It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe" [Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126 ].
Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show that while Christ said keep the commandments, Luther says actions don't matter, one need only "believe."

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126." This reference is bogus. They cite this same reference here. "Erlangen" refers to Dr. M. Luthers Samtliche Werke, an older set of Luther's works from the nineteenth century. There is no such comment from Luther "It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe" on Page 126 of Erl. 29. This is a page from Vom Greuel Der Stillmesse, 1525 (See PE 6:87 for corresponding English text to Erl 29:126). Luther, Exposing the Myth probably lifted this quote from Peter Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor. Quoting Luther on page 30, Wiener states,

"It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe." "God does not need our actions. All He wants is that we pray to Him and thank Him." Even the example of Christ Himself means nothing to him. "It does not matter how Christ behaved—what He taught is all that matters" (E29, 196), is Luther's subtle distinction.

Wiener only documents the last quote. So, for Luther, Exposing the Myth, not only is this quote not found in Erlangen 29, but they mis-plagiarized Wiener using the wrong page number (126) rather than Wiener's  page 196. The only quote actually documented here from Wiener is the last one. (Notice here the scholarship of This Rock Magazine from Catholic Answers. They cite the same bogus reference in their September 2005 "featured article": "Luther’s Works, Erlangen, vol. 29, p. 126").

Without any documentation, finding the context can only be speculative. Wiener's documentation is highly dubious. He says the reason for his sloppy documentation was the rush job demanded by his publisher:

It was, however, only with very great reluctance that I was persuaded to omit my references and footnotes. My publisher and advisers were anxious that the book should be published in such a form and at a price that the greatest possible circulation could be guaranteed. This would have been impossible, especially under wartime conditions, if I had left the hundreds of references in the text. I have given in brackets merely the references of some of the more important quotations. But any reader who is anxious to check up any of the many extracts given in my book has merely to write to me direct and I will without delay supply him with chapter and verse. I can, however, guarantee that before going to press I have carefully checked all quotations [source]

An evaluation of Wiener's book was put together by Gordon Rupp. He directly challenged these assertions:

"My publisher and advisers," [Wiener] says, "were anxious that the book should be published in such a form and at a price that the greatest possible circulation could be guaranteed"(p. 7). In fact, this disinterested haste is made the excuse for withholding references to his innumerable quotations. A hundred or so have their references marked, but the principle on which they are given or withheld passes the wit of man to discriminate, since the harmless description of Luther's work in 1516 has full reference, while no citation at all is offered for the monstrous and absurd statement that "he did not refrain from saying and teaching 'I am Christ'" (p. 28). But then, he assures us, anybody who cares to write to him may have the references in full. And anybody with any sense knows that not one reader in a thousand will go to any such pains, but that the great majority will be vastly impressed by the references which are splashed about the pages, and by the apparent fairness of such disclaimers. Mr. Wiener manages the pattern well. He is, in fact, disarming in his modesty. "I am neither a scholar, nor a politician, neither a theologian, nor a professional author. I am an ordinary schoolmaster" (p. 5) [Gordon Rupp, Hitler's Cause or Curse, In Reply to Peter F. Wiener, p. 10].

Having spent a number of hours chasing down Wiener's references, I can verify the validity of Rupp's skepticism regarding Wiener's book. With those I am able to locate, Wiener (more often than not) has quoted Luther grossly out of context. With this in mind, I've come across a text that appears to be similar to that put forth by Wiener. It's possible he's actually quoting (or paraphrasing) a different section of Erlangen 29.

Speculative Context
Wiener correctly quotes Erl. 29 for "It does not matter how Christ behaved—what He taught is all that matters." This quote comes from the treatise Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525). This treatise can also be found in WA 18:62-214 (this quote being on page 117). There is a possibility Wiener is quoting the same treatise for "It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe." This treatise was written primarily against Luther's former colleague, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. Arguing against Karlstadt, Luther asserts,

[W]e have taught Christian liberty from [the writings] of St. Paul. There is to be freedom of choice in everything that God has not clearly taught in the New Testament, for example, in matters pertaining to various foods, beverages, attire, places, persons and various forms of conduct. We are obligated to do nothing at all for God, except believe and love [LW 40:127].

If Wiener is citing the same treatise, Luther is simply arguing against Karlstadt's legislating divine mandates outside Biblical mandates. Luther explains:

Where doing or to refrain from doing is in question, and concerning which God has taught, commanded, and forbidden nothing, there we should permit free choice as God himself has done. Whoever though goes beyond this by way of commandments or prohibition invades God’s own sphere of action, burdens the conscience, creates sin and misery, and destroys all that God has left free and certain. In addition he expels the Holy Spirit with all his kingdom, work, and word, so that nothing but devils remain [LW 40:129].

I'm not certain if this is the context of Wiener's Luther quote. If Wiener's middle quote was in this treatise ("God does not need our actions. All He wants is that we pray to Him and thank Him"), I would be more certain this is the context. The middle quote though appears to be from Luther's exposition of Psalm 118 (LW 14:32).

Conclusion
Regardless of what Wiener is quoting from, he's caricatured Luther position on faith and works. Luther defines good works as those “works that flow from faith and from the joy of heart that has come to us because we have forgiveness of sins through Christ” [What Luther Says 3:1499] Only what God commands is a good work: “Everybody should consider precious and glorious whatever God commands, even though it were no more than picking a wisp of straw from the ground” [What Luther Says 3:1500] Works are not done because we want salvation and fear damnation. Luther says, “…[W]e are not to do them merely because we fear death or hell, or because we love heaven, but because our spirit goes out freely in love of, and delight in, righteousness” [What Luther Says 3:1499]. Luther plainly teaches that saving faith is a living faith. Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. 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 [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, 1:34].

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. 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.

An Evangelical Introduction to Church History (Part 2)

The Tomb of "Mevlana" (Turkish) or "Mowlana" ( مولانا - Farsi), the Sufi mystic, Jallal al din e Rumi, in the city of Konya, Turkey. (1207 – 1247) Konya is the ancient city of Iconium, one of the cities of Biblical Southern Galatia. (Acts 14, book of Galatians) Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe are 3 of the major cities of the apostle Paul’s first missionary journey. These, along with Pisidian Antioch, probably are the main churches Paul wrote to in his letter to the Galatians. "to the churches of Galatia" (plural, Gal. 1:2)

What happened to the once biblical churches? The historical reality is that individual churches can die and be removed. Islam came later as a judgment on the churches that had drifted from the Bible and left their first love. ( Galatians 1:6-9; Revelation 2:4-5)

Today, there is no known Turkish or Kurdish Christians in Konya, and no official Christian churches in any of these areas. Konya today is one of the most Islamic religious cities in all of Turkey. Mowlana or Rumi, was a Persian, who was born in Balkh, (today in Afghanistan near Muzhar Sharif), whose poetry is some of the most famous Sufi mystic poetry of Islamic history. Many Muslims visit his grave and pray to him, asking for his intercession, and for him, and leave money on his shrine. Mowlana is called "Rumi" because he fled the Mongolian invasions and settled in "Rum" (what the Iranians and Turks called all of Byzantine/Greek/Roman civilization. The Seljuk Turks had conquered this area from the Byzantines at this time.

In part 1, here we saw that some very important early church fathers give indications that they held to some views and doctrines that are closer to Protestant Christianity in general. We are not claiming that these early writers/leaders are Protestants, as that would be anachronistic. They are not Roman Catholic either. They are catholic, meaning “universal”. (from the Greek word, made up of two words, “kata” (according to) and “holicos” (the whole). Ignatius first uses this term, and Protestants have historically also claimed that they are catholic also, in the early usage of this term. The true catholic church are the true believers, the elect of God from all nations, spreading all over the world. ( Revelation 5:9) And the gates of hades, meaning death, does not overcome true believers. (Matthew 16:18) “And this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith.” (see I John 5:4-5) The promise of Matthew 16:18 does not mean a particular church in a particular city, much less the church in the city of Rome, would continue. There is absolutely nothing in the text about Rome or a pope or infallibility or apostolic succession. The blessing of Christ to Peter is about Peter’s faith confession and that God revealed the truth to Him, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Revelation chapters 2-3 proves this, that local churches can drift away from the truth and disappear from history; as does Colossae, as there is no known Colossian church anymore at that site, which is today in Turkey. I have been there and there is nothing left except a few stones. The same thing happened for the area of Galatia, (today modern Central Turkey) and other places.

In Part 2, here, we will expand upon I Clement and explore some of Ignatius’ writings.

One of the most important things that modern Evangelicals lack and neglect is good teaching on the subject of church history. One of the things that shock many Evangelicals is when they start reading church history and the actual writings of the early church fathers. Some read Roman Catholic apologetic works and when they run into “catholic sounding” words like “Eucharist” and “penance” and “bishops” and “the chair of Peter”, “tradition” and even the word, “catholic”; they are taken aback and not prepared to deal with these things. The lack of appreciation for both the good things in Church history, and a sound theological and biblical explanation of the unbiblical traditions have created this vacuum in some thinking and sensitive modern Protestants.

When modern Evangelicals don't show both the good and the bad in church history and expose the bad traditions and practices; and hold up Scripture as the umpire and final infallible authority, then there is this vacuum and shock that some want to fill it with a sense of history and longing for those nostalgic feelings of “coming home”. John Bugay wrote a very good article on this issue, here.
This search for certainty and connection to history and seeing some words that occur in the early writings that have a different Roman/papal meaning later in history, can deceptively trick people into accepting the un-biblical Roman Catholic additions and corruptions of later centuries.

Jude 3 teaches us that the original deposit, the faith of the apostles, was “once for all delivered to the saints”. The early church also called this “the tradition”, “the faith”, “the tradition of the apostles”, but they did not mean what modern Roman Catholicism means by “tradition”. The Roman church has taken man made traditions and added them to the rule of faith and original deposit, the same problem that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 and what Paul told the Colossians to beware of. (Colossians 2:8)

Properly understanding the context of these letters will show that Protestant Evangelicals can be deeper in understanding church history properly and more Biblical and stand against the false claim of John Henry Newman, that “to be deep history is to cease to be Protestant”, that has been attracting so many to Rome in recent years.

Now to focus on Ignatius and Clement. Clement is older than Ignatius by a few years, so the issue of the presbyters and overseers/bishops as one office is an earlier and therefore "deeper in history" truth. But even though Ignatius starts the custom of "mono-episcopate" (one bishop over the college of Presbyters), he is a far cry from any kind of papal doctrine or idea. He is the bishop of Antioch, so even he would disagree with the later claims of some bishops of Rome. But he writes some early words like "catholic" and "eucharist" that many Protestants are unprepared to deal with when they first read them from someone who wrote around 107-117 AD.

Just because Ignatius, around 107-117 AD writes about “the catholic church” (kata – holicos = “according to the whole”; to the Smyneans 8:2) and the Lord’s supper as the “eucharist” (eucharisto – thanksgiving; To the Smyreans) – does not mean that the early church was “Roman Catholic”. Protestants agree that Jesus was really, physically crucified, that He had a physical body, so we are not docetics who abstained from the Lord’s supper, because they denied Jesus had a physical body. Ignatius’ main argument was against Docetics and their reason for abstaining from the Lord’s supper was because they denied the humanity and physicality of Jesus. Protestants agree with the Bible and Ignatius that Jesus was really crucified and buried and rose physically from the dead. Just because Ignatius uses these words does not mean that the early church was the same church as the modern Roman Catholic of today. He is not teaching any kind of “transubstantiation” doctrine. This came much later, under Radbertus, in the 800s and was developed up until Aquinas and then it was declared dogma in 1215.

See Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, by Harold O. J. Brown. Hendrickson, 1984, 1988; pp. 228-233.
and
Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, by Keith Matthison. Presbyterian and Reformed. 2002. (pp. 346-348)

We have no problem with calling the Lord’s Supper the celebration of “thanksgiving” for what Christ has done for us in His once for all substitutionary atonement. So, Biblical and believing Protestants are also “catholic” in the early church sense that Ignatius writes of. Ignatius is taken by Roman Catholic apologists to call the eucharist “the flesh Christ”, but his point is "the flesh of Christ", really existed and suffered in time and space, "which suffered for our sins and which the Father by His goodness raised up." (To the Smyneans, 6:2) He seems to mean that the Eucharist “represents” or “signifies” the real body and blood of Christ, which suffered. (see To the Smyrneans, 6:2, also 1:1-2 and the context of referring back to the real physical history of Christ and the Docetists denial of the flesh of Christ. ". . . totally convinced with regard to our Lord that He is truly of the family of David with respect to human descent, Son of God with respect to the divine will and power, truly born of a virgin, baptized by john, . . . truly nailed in the flesh under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch . . . ". Ignatius is writing in the context of the Docetics denial of Jesus’ humanity and that he had a real physical body and blood. Jesus was not a ghost or phantom. The reason the Docetics, Ignatius explains, abstain from the eucharist, is that that don't believe Jesus was physical at all in history. Protestants cannot be accused of that, for we believe the flesh of Christ was truly nailed and suffered physically, so we celebrate the bread and wine (or grape juice) as symbols of the historical reality. "The Word became flesh".

"For He suffered all these things for our sakes, in order that we might be saved; and He truly suffered just as He truly raised Himself - not as certain unbelievers say, that He suffered in appearance only (It is they who exist in appearance only!)" (To the Smyrneans, 2:1) (see also Trallians, 9)
Because of the context of the words of Ignatius, there is nothing inherently contradictory to a protestant understanding of the Lord’s supper here; whereas it is further away from transubstantiation and the superstition of thinking that a Roman Catholic priest can say Latin words and it changes it into Christ's body and blood, and the blasphemy of actually worshiping the consecrated host.


Ignatius has some other very great and meaningful statements on the Deity of Christ. Ignatius of Antioch, on the Deity of Christ, calls Jesus God 9 times (2 of them are less clear) in 7 letters (ca. 110 AD)
“Jesus Christ our God” Ephesians , Preface – “suffering by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God . . . “Ephesians 15:3, Ephesians 18:2, Romans Preface- 2 times, Romans 3:3, Trallians 7, and Smyrneans 10:1 are less clear. (because of textual variants). Ignatius speaks of Christ’s blood as “God's blood” Ephesians 1:1. He calls Jesus “God incarnate” Ephesians 7:2. In Jesus “God appeared in human form” Ephesians 19:3. Believing Protestants can appreciate these statements and see that the early church was firm in its belief in the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, and the evidence from Ignatius here around 110 AD, shows that the Deity of Christ and the Trinity did not suddenly appear in 325 AD, as many enemies of the faith claim, like Muslims and modern skeptics and cults and others who write popular books, such as the Divinci Code.

Ignatius was an early martyr of the Christian faith, so that is a great positive thing that Protestants can learn from early church history. The records say he was fed to wild beasts, something the pagan Romans are famous for, and known to have done to Christians in the early centuries and enjoyed as a "spectator sport"!

Another positive thing from Ignatius is that at least 3 times, he says things like, "I am not commanding you as though I were somebody." and "I am not an apostle" and "I do not give you orders like an apostle" ( Ephesians 3, To the Trallians 3:3; To the Romans 4:3). This shows that even though Ignatius seems to have exalted the office of the bishop above the presbyters and violated Scripture, and he does say "obey the bishop as Jesus obeyed the Father" (Smyrneans 8) and "do nothing without the bishop" (Philadelphians 7; Trallians 2:2); and he calls for respecting the bishop and being subject to the presbyters "as to the apostles of Jesus Christ" (Trallians 2:2, 3); in spite of all that; this is balanced out by "I do not claim to give commands as an apostle", so he still does not see his authority as the same as the apostles or Scripture. He does not claim apostolic authority, and so does not exalt the church or traditions above Scripture, as the later Roman Catholic Church did. He does not seem to have the same view of some kind of "apostolic succession" that the Romanist/papists do.

Clement of Rome ( 96 AD) - Presbyters and Bishops are the same office – I Clement 44, confirming Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; I Peter 5:1-4. Clement, with the Biblical passages, along with Philippians 1:1 (bishops and deacons), along with the Didache (15) (bishops and deacons), and with Jerome’s statement that a “A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop” and that the bishops being appointed above the presbyters was “a custom, not by divine appointment” (Commentary on Titus, PL 26:562-563, cited by James White in Perspectives on Church Government, Five Views of Church Polity, Broadman and Holman, 2004, p. 251-252) shows that the deepest and oldest history is that local churches had two offices 1. elders (overseers, who teach and shepherd the flock or do the work of pastors) and 2. deacons (servants, ministers); and that it was later that the office of bishop (episcopos/overseer) was separated out from and made above the college of plurality of elders for each church.

The evidence in I Clement is that Clement himself is not a “pope”, as the Roman Catholics claim, but the moderator or secretary spokesman or “president”, in the words of Justin Martyr for the college of elders from the church at Rome. This is one church writing to another church.

“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.” ( I Clement preface before paragraph 1)

I Clement rebukes the Corinthian church for deposing the elders there who have served faithfully. (42-44, 47, 54) He calls what the Corinthians have done, by getting rid of the presbyters, “a detestable and unholy schism, so alien and strange to those chosen by God” (paragraph 1) The Corinthians got rid of their elders out of jealousy and arrogance, as the rebuke of jealousy and pride is a major theme of this letter: (paragraphs 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 9; 16; 43-44; 46; 54 ) He exhorts the Corinthians to humility and repentance. (1: 7-8 and 1:13; 48, 57)

“Therefore it is right and holy, brothers, that we should be obedient to God rather than follow those who in arrogance and unruliness have set themselves up as leaders in abominable jealousy.” (1:14 – Michael Holmes’ translation. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their writings. Second Edition. J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, editors and translators. Micheal Holmes, editor and reviser. Baker Books, 1992, p. 43.)

Clement also exhorted the church of the Corinthians to go back to the Scriptures:
“Let us study the records of the things that have happened from the beginning. Why was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he attained righteousness and truth through faith?” (I Clement, 31)

He quotes from the epistle to the Hebrews in I Clement 36, several times, which shows the early church affirmed it as Scripture very early on; even though some others in other places struggled with accepting it as canonical.

In I Clement 42, he shows that there are only 2 church offices, bishops (elders) and deacons. In I Clement 44, he clearly shows that the bishop/overseer/episcopos is the same office as elder/presbyter.

In I Clement 45, he gives a good description of inspiration and inerrancy – “You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. You will not find that righteous people have ever been thrust out by holy men.”

In I Clement 47, he again points them back to the Scriptures and says, “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he write to you in the beginning of the gospel? Truly he wrote to you in the Spirit about himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had split into factions.”

When we read the Scriptures on this issue and indeed, take up the letter of I Corinthians, we find the solution to the problem there. Paul wrote in I Corinthians 4:6, in the same context of the divisions and disunity and factions (1:10-11; 3:1-10; 4:1-6), “Do not go beyond what is written.” Paul gives them the Scriptural solution and Clement points them back to the bible. No papal encyclical here. Here Paul actually uses a general principle of a kind of early form of Sola Scriptura, even though all the Scriptures have not been written yet. “Do not go beyond what is written” surely refers to his exhortations and instructions in the letter itself, in dealing with the factions in the church, since he says, “I have applied these things figuratively to Apollos and myself.” It shows that the final authority is Scripture, not what a bishop or future pope or council says.

“It is disgraceful, dear friends, yes, utterly disgraceful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the well-established and ancient church of the Corinthians, because of one or two persons, is rebelling against its presbyters.” (I Clement 47:6)

“Only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters.” ( I Clement 54)

Clement also has an early statement on justification by faith apart from good works wrought by us within us. Mediate on these beautiful biblically based words, a truly valuable commentary:

“All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” I Clement 32

See also Mathetes, Epistle to Diognetes, 9.


For more excellent information on the early church and the issue of justification by faith alone, see also:

Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, edited by Bruce L. McCormack (Baker Academic, 2006).

and “Justification in the Early Church” – for many other early references.

When he says in I Clement 30, “being justified by works and not by words”, he is not teaching justification by the merit of good works as the Roman Catholic apologist claims, for that would also contradict what he wrote in paragraph 31, and 32 and 10, quoting Genesis 15:6, that Abraham was justified by faith, and not good works. Rather, he is teaching the same thing that James taught in James chapter 2, verses 14-26, that good works are the result and vindicate and prove that someone has true faith. Just words are not enough that real faith is there. Real faith is living and active and results in good works. Here, Clement uses the meaning of “justify” as in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35 – in the sense of “prove” or “vindicate” or “show to be true”. The context makes it clear. At the beginning of I Clement 30, he writes, “Seeing then that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all the things that pertain to holiness, forsaking slander, disgusting and impure embraces, drunkenness and rioting, and detestable lusts, abominable adultery, detestable pride.” We are the portion of the Holy One, we have the reality; God's grace has first changed us, by grace alone, through faith alone; therefore, we can now do good works. This is similar to Colossians 3:12, “Since, as those who have been chosen, holy, beloved, put on a heart of compassion, patience, humility, . . . “ This is fully compatible with good protestant teaching, that calls for holiness from those who have made a profession of faith and claim to be believers.

So, in summary from I Clement:
1. Elders/overseers should not be deposed because some “younger men” want the leadership of the church out of pride and jealousy.
2. Jealousy and pride are terrible sins that cause schisms and church splits and should be repented of.
3. A local church can and should rebuke another church if they have done something sinful or immoral or clearly un-biblical. (as was the case here.)
4. Elders and bishops are the same office. I Clement 44
5. Clement puts the word of God, the Scriptures as the ultimately authority and does not say, “obey me, as a bishop of bishops or pope”; no, he says “look to the Scriptures and repent of sins of arrogance and jealousy, because the Scriptures say.
6. Clement teaches an early form of justification by faith apart from the merit of works in the person. This is the same thing as what the Reformers would put into a terse phrase, “Sola Fide”, or “faith alone”, meaning apart from the condition of good works or obedience to the law. (I Clement 32)
7. The phrase of “being justified by works, not by words” (30) is the same teaching as the protestant understanding of James 2:14-26, that good works are the necessary and inevitable fruit and result of real faith; not just saying “I have faith”, but actually possessing real justifying faith in Christ alone for salvation.
8. I Clement 44 also says that the elders are appointed “with the consent of the whole church”, which is a far cry from any kind of papal authoritarian command.

No, friends, the early church was not Roman Catholic. It was catholic; and we can “let the early church be the early church” (Dr. White has said this many times on his Dividing Line program when addressing these issues) without trying to make it identical with 16 Century Protestantism. To be deep in history is to see and expose Newman’s saying as flawed and not fall for the deception of anachronistically reading church history, and not falling for the radical skepticism of “how do you know for sure” that you have the right church or the right interpretation or “how do you know for sure that the early church got the canon of Scripture right?”

“No coincidence that the first works of papal history are fictitious accounts written by the popes”

It seems as if it’s “let’s persuade Scott Windsor that he needs to re-think his avocation” week here at Beggars All. I’m continuing to respond to his brief defense of the papacy. (Earlier posts discussing his “Scriptural Defense” are here, here and here.) My hope is to return to these “scriptural defenses,” but he also threw out a historical citation that needs to be addressed as well.

In some recent posts, our motivations have been questioned. I’m sure we’ve responded to them adequately; but I want to go a bit further and state, as I’ve done before, that I’m interested in knowing “the truth.” You can think of me as an investigative reporter, and when I study the early papacy, [or the Reformation, or any other topic], I’m interested in knowing, with the greatest degree of certainty that our sources can provide, “what they knew, and when they knew it.” What actually happened.

This is vitally important with respect to the early papacy, because, in polemic discussions on this topic, someone like Scott, taking a literalist interpretation of Vatican 1, will say something like “Christ founded a visible church, Peter was the Rock of Matthew 16, Clement mentioned “worthy men,” and therefore, there was an unbroken chain of “popes” down through the centuries.”

In fact, this is a very dishonest summary of the history of those centuries. The Roman Catholic writer Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), painstakingly works through all possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study not only that “the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development], but he interacts with the notion that there is a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century, and he flatly dismisses it. [Sullivan, 221-222].

Klaus Schatz, in his Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present, not only acknowledges that in the case of the process of the development of “the historically developed papacy” the initial phases of this long process “extended well into the fifth century” (Schatz pg 36)
.
I concluded my last post with a discussion of the conditions in which bishops of Rome found themselves, and also a fairly lengthy selection about pope Damasus (366-382).

Another Catholic writer, Robert Eno, S.S. (“Order of the Sulpicians,” whose mission it is to teach Roman Catholic seminarians), notes, “From the time of Pope Damasus (366-384), the evidence for the Roman view of itself became abundant. … I might point out that this distinction between what Rome says about itself and what other, non-Roman sources say about Roman authority, is one that must be observed throughout this enquiry.” (“The Rise of the Papacy,” Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier Press, 1990, p 30).

As I’ve pointed out in the past, Roger Collins notes (in the spirit of Eno) that It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes.

Just sayin’. And I’m just sayin’ that, just as the non-existent early papacy was based on pious and not-so-pious fictions, the medieval papacy, too, rests on not-so-pious fictions.

Now is a good time to remind everyone of what Scott provides, in addition to his exegesis of Matt 16:18, as another “early evidence” for the papacy”:

Testimony from the Early Fathers:
In 517 the Eastern bishops assented to and signed the formula of Pope Hormisdas, which states in part: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church” [Matt. 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.’ (qtd in This Rock, October 1998).

Klaus Schatz explains a bit of this process, from an actual historical perspective:

In the five hundred years from the fifth to the tenth centuries the role of Rome was very different in the Byzantine “imperial Church” and in the West, which after the tribal migrations of the fifth century consisted of a group of independent Germanic kingdoms. Until the eight century, except for the period between 476 and 536 when it was ruled by Odoacer and the Ostrogoths, Rome belonged to the empire governed from Constantinople. The pope was a subject of the emperor, and from the sixth to the eight century the Roman bishop elected by the clergy and people of Rome had to be confirmed by the emperor in Constantinople before he could be consecrated. [And yes, it was the forged “Donation of Constantine” that enabled Rome to break free of this domination].

For five hundred years [400-900] the role of Rome in the imperial Church was determined essentially by the relationships among three entities: the ecumenical councils, the patriarchates, and the imperial establishment. The essential features of this set of relationships developed in the middle of the fifth century, with the events of the years 449-451 the crucial turning point. …

For the ecumenical councils, as for all matters that had to be settled at the highest levels, the “patriarchates” came increasingly to be the most important entities. The terms “patriarch” and “patriarchate” emerged in the fifth century and became fixed usage in the sixth. They originated in the triad of principal churches at Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. The sixth canon of the Council of Nicea (325) explicitly confirmed the “ancient custom” that these three bishops were to have ecclesial jurisdiction (not specifically defined) over their own regions. (Schatz 41-42)

What follows are the years between 325 and 381, when Arianism is defeated and the doctrine of the Trinity defined; following the Council of Constantinople (381), which in which the Nicene Creed was finalized, and the murderer pope Damasus didn’t want to be bothered (except to assert that he was boss). From 381 then, until 451, came the Christological struggles and the council of Chalcedon.

Eamon Duffy notes:

In addition to its doctrinal work, the Council of Constantinople issued a series of disciplinary canons, which went straight to the heart of Roman claims to primacy over the whole Church. The Council decreed that appeals in the cases of bishops should be heard within the bishop’s own province – a direct rebuttal of Rome’s claim to be the final court of appeal in all such cases. It went on to stipulate that ‘the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the pre-eminence in honour after the Bishop of Rome, for Constantinople is new Rome’.

This last canon was totally unacceptable to Rome for two reasons. In the first place it capitulated to the imperial claim to control of the Church, since Constantinople had nothing but the secular status of the city to justify giving it this religious precedence. Worse, however, the wording implied that the primacy of Rome itself was derived not from its apostolic pedigree as the Church of Peter and Paul, but from the fact that it had once been the capital of the empire. Damasus and his successors refused to accept the canons… (Duffy 34-35).

So during the first two councils, Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381), while the eastern bishops were doing the heavy lifting, bishops of Rome were not present, they were an afterthought, and the pope's alleged "divine institution" was not recognized at all. By councils of bishops.

This is a bit lengthy, and there’s more of it, so I’ll finish it in another installment, Lord willing. But note here that the image of a “unified church under the pope” is far, far from reality.

Scott Windsor weighs in on Luther's belief in the Immaculate Conception

Scott Windsor has weighed in on Luther's belief in the Immaculate Conception, and says I'm arguing from silence that Luther later abandoned this belief:

Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning: "But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3
3 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 4, 694.
Correction on this citation, which many other Catholic apologetics sites have as well. This quote actually comes from a sermon preached by Luther ("On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527) and was published with his permission, but prior to the end of his life it is not found in published editions of his works. Modern Protestant apologists speculate that he rejected the Immaculate Conception, but this is an argument from silence.[source]
In response To Mr. Windsor: in yesterday's mail I received Luther's Works vol. 58 (published this month). They state:

Originally, Luther may have held something similar to the Thomist position, put forward in the Festival Postil (1527), sermon on the conception of Mary, WA 17/2:287-288, though the material in question seems to be solely the responsibility of its editor, Stephan Roth (d.1546), and was removed from the 1528 and subsequent editions: see StL 11:959-961; Baseley 1:50-51. In his later preaching, Luther affirmed that Mary had been both conceived and born in sin and connected her purification from sin with the work of the Holy Spirit at the time of Christ's conception: see e.g., Luther's sermons for Christmas Eve 1539, WA 47:860, and 1540 WA 49:173; Dufel, Luther's Stellung zur Marienverehrung, pp. 163-174, 196-97; Kreitzer, Reforming Mary, pp. 110-11 [LW 58:434-435].

Is Concordia Publishing arguing from silence as well? Hardly, they're affirming the same argument I've been presenting for years. In the article Scott Windsor has posted, it says "the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death." This is simply untrue. As to Luther's changing view on the Immaculate Conception, even some of my Roman Catholic opponents have finally conceded I'm right about this (it only took about seven years). See:

Luther: the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin
1544: Luther's Explanation Concerning Mary and the Birth of Christ
Response to Paul Hoffer on Luther & the Immaculate Conception
Luther: God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins
Did Martin Luther believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?



Addendum #1I also took some time to work through some of Scott Windsor's Luther references posted on his website. He's taken the web page "The Protestant Reformers On Mary" from Mariology.com and added it as worthy material for his "American Catholic Truth Society." Now he's blogged the same page allowing me to comment on the material.

All of the Luther references had errors, and some of the quotes were grossly out of context.

1. "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan (Concordia: St. Louis), volume 24, 107.]

This quote isn't from WA 24 (Weimar). It's from LW 24 (Luther's Works):

Therefore we must adhere to the speech and expressions of Holy Writ and retain and confess the doctrine that this Christ is true God, through whom all things are created and exist, and at the same time that this same Christ, God’s Son, is born of the Virgin, dies on the cross, etc. Furthermore, Mary, the mother, does not carry, give birth to, suckle, and nourish only the man, only flesh and blood—for that would be dividing the Person—but she carries and nourishes a son who is God’s Son. Therefore she is rightly called not only the mother of the man but also the Mother of God. This the old fathers taught in opposition to the Nestorians, who objected to calling Mary “Mother of God” and refused to say that she had given birth to God’s Son.

Here we must again confess with our Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ, God the Father’s only Son, our Lord, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, was crucified, died.” It is always one and the same Son of God, our Lord. Therefore it is certain that Mary is the mother of the real and true God, and that the Jews crucified not only the Son of Man but also the true Son of God. For I do not want a Christ in Whom I am to believe and to whom I am to pray as my Savior who is only man. Otherwise I would go to the devil. For mere flesh and blood could not erase sin, reconcile God, remove His anger, overcome and destroy death and hell, and bestow eternal life."

Here, Luther's using the rich Christ-centered usage of Theotokos when discussing the incarnation or Christ’s Deity. I would agree with him. so, this quote may be a "shocker" to some sort of fundamentalist type, but not the Reformed or Lutheran.

2. "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin" [Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320].

This reference appears to be to WA 11, not LW. "op cit." refers to the previous reference. That means, The web page want us to go back to the source just cited. Well, it unknowingly cited LW. This reference though is sort of from WA 11. Here is an English rendering of pages 319-320 from WA 11. Where is "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin" located?

...as happened after the coming of Christ, but remained solely in the possession of the fathers and their descendants.

Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity if it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.

The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory. If it had been possible for him to have come from a [married] woman, he would not have selected a virgin for this, since virginity is contrary to the physical nature within us, was condemned of old in the law, and is extolled here solely because the flesh is tainted and its built-in physical nature cannot bestow her fruit except by means of an accursed act.

Hence we see that St. Paul nowhere calls the mother of God a virgin, but only a woman, as he says in Galatians 3 [4:4], “The Son of God was born of a woman.” He did not mean to say she was not a virgin, but to extol her virginity to the highest with the praise that is proper to it, as much as to say: In this birth none but a woman was involved, no man participated; that is, everything connected with it was reserved to the woman, the conceiving, bearing, suckling, and nourishing of the child were functions no man can perform. It is therefore the child of a woman only; hence, she must certainly be a virgin. But a virgin may also be a man; a mother can be none other than a woman.

For this reason, too, Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin.

The third passage is addressed to David, II Samuel 7[:12–14], “When your days are fulfilled, and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” These words cannot have been spoken of Solomon, for Solomon was not a posthumous son of David raised up after his death. Neither did God after Solomon (who during David’s lifetime was born and became king) ever designate anyone as His son, give him an everlasting kingdom, or have him build such a house. Consequently, the whole passage must refer to Christ. We will let this passage go for the present because it is too broad and requires so much in the way of exegesis; for one would have to show here that Christ accordingly had to be the son of a woman only in order to be called here God’s child, who neither should nor could come out of an accursed act.

The fourth passage is Isaiah 7[:14], “God himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin [jungfrau] is with child, and shall bear a son.” This could not have been said of a virgin who was about to be married. For what sort of a marvelous sign would that be if someone who is presently a virgin should bear a child within a year? Such is the ordinary course of nature, occurring daily before our eyes. If it is to be a sign from God, therefore, it must be something remarkable and marvelous not given by the ordinary course of nature, as is commonly the case with all God’s signs.

It is of no help for the Jews either to try to evade the issue here and come up with this way of getting around it, namely: the sign consists in the fact that Isaiah says flatly that the child shall be a son and not a daughter. By such an interpretation the sign would have nothing to do with the virgin but only with the prophet Isaiah, as the one who had divined so precisely that it would not be a daughter. The text would then have to speak of Isaiah thus, “Behold, God himself will give you a sign, namely, that I, Isaiah, will divine that a young woman [jung weyb] is carrying a son, and not a daughter.” Such an interpretation is disgraceful and childish.

Now granted, we could probably infer here that for Luther "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin" from "Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ." That would be my guess.

4. "Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption: 'There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know.'" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William I. Cole) 10, p. 268.]

First error: William J. Cole didn't translate Volume 10 of Luther's Works. The quote was probably snatched from his article "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 123-124. The reference left out what Cole actually cited: WA 10 (3), 268, 13 to 269. The (3) is crucial because there are three volumes of Volume 10.

Luther stated in 1522:

Today the festival of our dear lady, the mother of God, is observed to celebrate her death and departure above. But how little this Gospel corresponds with this is plain. For this Gospel tells us nothing about Mary being in heaven. And even if one could draw from this text every detail about what it is like for a saint to be in heaven, it would be of little use. It is enough that we know that departed saints live in God, as Christ concludes in Matthew [Matthew 22] based on the passage in Exodus [Exodus 4] where God says to Moses, "I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob," that God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.

Now, let's take off our Assumption glasses for a moment with this Luther quote from 1522. Toward the end of his life, Luther delivered a series of lectures on the book of Genesis. Note the following:

This is what Moses wanted to indicate when he speaks of 'the lives of Sarah.' It is as though he were saying: 'Sarah, in conformity with differences in places and people, often adopted a different attitude and different ways. When she came to a place where she thought she would live pleasantly and quietly, she was compelled to move and to change her plans and feelings as she did so.' For this reason that saintly woman had many lives. More attention should have been given to these things, although it is easy for me to believe that in her hundredth year she was just as beautiful as she was in her twentieth.

Then one should much rather consider how Abraham delivered a beautiful funeral address about Sarah. For in the Holy Scriptures no other matron is so distinguished. Her years, lives, conduct, and burial place are described. In the eyes of God, therefore, Sarah was an extraordinary jewel on whom extraordinary love was bestowed, and she is mentioned deservedly by Peter as an exemplar for all saintly wives. He says (1 Peter 3:6) that she called Abraham lord and that “you are her daughters.” To all Christian matrons Peter holds her up as a mother.

Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God.

But these facts do not concern Sarah, who is already dead, as much as they concern us, who are still alive. For it is a very great comfort to hear that the departure and death of that most saintly matriarch and of all the fathers, in comparison with whom we are nothing, differs in no wise from our own death but was just as odious and ignominious as our own is. Their bodies were buried, consumed by worms, and hidden in the earth on account of their stench, not otherwise than if they had not been the corpses of saints; yet they were most saintly people, and, although departed, they are actually alive in Christ.

Accordingly, these things are written for our sakes, in order that we may know that the most saintly fathers and mothers underwent the same experiences we are wont to undergo. Nevertheless, it is certain about them that in the eyes of God they live; and I believe that they — namely, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Adam, etc. — rose with Christ.

Note above how Luther treats Mary. He doesn't speak of some cryptic way in which Mary disappeared off the earth. No, she's placed in a list with others whose deaths are not recorded in Scripture, and are passed over in silence. Are we to assume, based on Luther's words, that all the women were Assumed into Heaven?

The volume from which Scott's assumption quote comes from has all sorts of feast day sermons, some to various saints. In each instance, Luther says things like "what this person did isn't in Scripture, so we aren't going to talk about it."

5. "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313].

William Cole didn't have anything to do with WA 10 (3), The reference otherwise is accurate.

As to "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart"- in context, Luther states,

You know, my friends, that deep in the heart of men is inscribed the honor with which one honors the mother of God; yes, it is even so deep that no one willingly hears anything against it, but extols her more and more.

Luther's point is that whatever respect Mary was due to her, the Church collectively had gone far beyond it. Note Luther's qualifier: "Now we grant that she should be honored since we are enjoined by the Scripture to receive one another with honor, as Paul says (Romans 12:10); so man must also honor her." Romans 12:10 states, "Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another." Luther saw that Mary had become more than she actually was. Note where Luther places Mary with his veneration of her:

We are called Christians after Christ, because we depend upon him alone and are his children and heritage; in this respect we are like the Mother of God herself and Mary's brothers and sisters; otherwise we do injury to the holy blood of Christ, for through his blood all of us are cleansed from sin and made partakers of his goods. In this respect we are likewise holy as she. And if she received greater grace, that did not happen because of her merit but because of the mercy of God, for we cannot all be the mother of God. Otherwise she is like to us inasmuch as, by the blood of Christ, she has come to grace as we have. WA 10 (3), 315, 10 to 316, 11

So there you go- in a passage in which Luther chastises the church of his day for excessive Mary worship, and Mary is to be honored as all Christians are according to Romans 12:10, the quote is cited by Catholic apologists to prove Luther held to similar devotional practices of today's Roman Catholic. For a detailed look at this quote see: Luther: The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.

6. " 'Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing.' Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129].

Pelikan had nothing to do with WA 51, nor did he edit LW 51.Yes, the quote is in WA 51. Unfortunately, it's completely out of context. The quote can be found in the following context. Is Luther being cited in context?

And what I say about the sin of lust, which everybody understands, applies also to reason; for the reason mocks and affronts God in spiritual things and has in it more hideous harlotry than any harlot. Here we have an idolater running after an idol, as the prophets say, under every green tree [cf. Jer. 2:20; I Kings 14:23], as a whorechaser runs after a harlot. That’s why the Scriptures call idolatry whoredom, while reason calls it wisdom and holiness. How the prophets inveighed against this lovely whoredom, idolatry! It is a wild thing which is not easily caught and its foolishness is inborn, but it considers itself the height of wisdom and justice, and still it cannot understand the things of God. We must guard against it, as the prophets say: You must not serve God on the mountains or in the valleys or under the trees, but in Jerusalem, which is the place that God appointed for his worship and where his Word is. But here again, reason says: True enough, I have been called, circumcised, and adjured to go to Jerusalem, but here is a beautiful meadow, a fine green mountain; if we worship God here this will please God and all the angels in heaven. After all, is God the kind of God who binds himself only to Jerusalem? Such wisdom of reason the prophets call whoredom.

Therefore, when we preach faith, that we should worship nothing but God alone, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we say in the Creed: “I believe in God the Father almighty and in Jesus Christ,” then we are remaining in the temple at Jerusalem. Again, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” [Matt. 17:5]. “You will find him in a manger” [cf. Luke 2:12]. He alone does it. But reason says the opposite: What, us?Are we to worship only Christ? Indeed, shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ? She is the woman who bruised the head of the serpent. Hear us, Mary, for try Son so honors thee that he can refuse thee nothing. Here Bernard went too far in his “Homilies on the Gospel ‘Missus est Angelus.’ ” God has commanded that we should honor the parents; therefore I will call upon Mary. She will intercede for me with the Son, and the Son with the Father, who will listen to the Son. So you have the picture of God as angry and Christ as judge; Mary shows to Christ her breast and Christ shows his wounds to the wrathful Father. That’s the kind of thing this comely bride, the wisdom of reason cooks up: Mary is the mother of Christ, surely Christ will listen to her; Christ is a stern judge, therefore I will call upon St. George and St. Christopher.

No, we have been by God’s command baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews were circumcised. Therefore, just as the Jews set up all over the land their own self-chosen shrines, as if Jerusalem were too narrow, so we also have done. As a young man must resist lust and an old man avarice, so reason is by nature a harmful whore. But she shall not harm me, if only I resist her. Ah, but she is so comely and glittering. That’s why there must be preachers who will point people to the catechism: I believe in Jesus Christ, not in St. George or St. Christopher, for only of Christ is it said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29]; not of Mary or the angels. The Father did not speak of Gabriel or any others when he cried from heaven, “Listen to him” [Matt. 17:5].

Therefore I should stick to the catechism; then I can defend myself against reason when the Anabaptists say, “Baptism is water; how can water do such great things? Pigs and cows drink it. The Spirit must do it.” Don’t you hear, you mangy, leprous whore, you holy reason, what the Scripture says, “Listen to him,” who says, “Go and baptize all nations” [Matt. 28:19], and “He who believes and is baptized [will be saved”]? [Mark 16:16]. It is not merely water, but baptism given in the name of the holy Trinity.

There's a lot of things to correct with Scott's webpage, at least with the Luther material. I didn't have time for the Calvin & Zwingli quotes. The quote from Luther on the Immaculate Conception should be removed entirely, as should Scott's "argument from silence" comment in his footnote. The Luther comment allegedly affirming the Assumption should likewise be removed, as the quote in context doesn't support any such thing. Also the two quotes about "honor to Mary" should be removed, as they likewise say no such thing in context.


Addendum #2Scott Windsor made some adjustments to his blog entry. Despite my better judgment, he's requesting a response. Below are Scott's recent comments or adjustments, and my response.

1. "Before we begin citing Luther, it must be noted that while he did continue honoring the Blessed Virgin in a very "Catholic" sense for a time after his departure from the visible Catholic Church; later in his life such sentiments are either flatly denied or have disappeared into silence."
Scott, define and explain Luther's "honoring the Blessed Virgin in a very 'Catholic" sense.' " Here you'll need to investigate Luther's "honoring." Then you need to revise that part of your blog article "Honor to Mary."

2. "Therefore, contextually speaking I can only support that Luther held these views in his Catholic and early Protestant days - but not through to the end of his life."
Then you contradict your posted article "the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death." Pick one.

3. "Modern Protestant apologists speculate that he rejected the Immaculate Conception, but this is an argument from silence."
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't read the links of the work I've done on this. Even the latest volume of Luther's Works supports my conclusion. Explain to me why my links are "arguments from silence." That is, go through my material, and show me where the "silence" is.

4. "I am still looking for where the "J. Pelikan" citation originates, if it does not turn up, I will delete it entirely and stick with wholly valid sources I have found."
Do you really think Pelikan had anything to do with a volume of Luther's writings published in the 1800's? The Latin text Ben M. found was published quite a long time ago.

5. "From what I am seeing, there's not a lot to "correct" - moreso to contextualize - which I believe my added statement at the beginning of the article now clarifies."
Well, if you attribute things to Luther like a lifelong belief in the Immaculate Conception or purposefully left the door open to Mary's Assumption, these are errors. The quotes about honoring Mary are not Roman Catholic-esque. The quotes you have posted actually speak against honoring Mary in a Romanist sense.

6. " The quotes are legitimately from Luther and AFTER his split with the Catholic Church - but I could not say he held these views throughout his life with a few exceptions."
And, if you'll simply read the materials on my blog, you'd then be informed.

7. "James Swan has basically stated that all citations and quotes should be thrown out, I beg to differ."
That is not what I "basically stated." It's true Luther used the term "Mother of God." It's true Luther held a lifelong belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. Keep in mind, if you want to be fair and honest with Luther, let him be Luther. See how defends or treats the issues.

8."Quote 1: The citation was inaccurate, according to his research (based on his mistake regarding quote 6, I'm not so sure, but we'll get to that in a moment."
What mistake did I make in quote six? You then said a few paragraphs later of quote six "On this quote it would appear Mr. Swan is correct and the original citation was taken out of context."

9. "Swan agrees that this can be seen as an "article of faith" since Luther said, "Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ."
Actually, my position is it's the only thing I found in the context that was remotely possible, and I'm being generous. It's up to you to prove that the quote you're citing is correct. This takes work Scott. you know how long looking up these quotes takes? A long time. As it stands, the context doesn't say anything about "article of faith." It's up to you to prove the citation accurate, not me. As it stands, the quote isn't in the context cited. I showed you the context, now you show me where it says "article of faith." If you can't prove "article of faith"- I suggest you use the quote I provided instead.

10. Quote 3: Citation is confusing, but appears to be an accurate citation of the Latin sermon in question - and the quotation is accurate. I'm still working on resolving this one completely, but it appears to be a "good quote."
LOL. Luther removed the quote and rewrote the place in the sermon where the quote was. The editors of Luther's works don't even think Luther wrote it. I'm not going to spoon feed you on this one. You've got my links, read them, and deal with the facts.

11. Quote 4: Citation should have been Cole's work Was Luther a Marian Devotee?" I fixed that.
The quote doesn't support the assumption. I have the entire sermon, and also you completely ignored the other material on this I provided. This should be removed. It isn't any sort of positive evidence Luther allowed for, or granted the assumption. If you've got any positive proof, I'd like to see it.

12. Quote 5: The citation was off (citing Cole again), and I fixed it. Swan himself said that other than the reference to Cole, "The reference otherwise is accurate."
If you want to deal with this quote, deal with what I've written on it: Luther: The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.

13. I'm sure Mr. Swan would like me to just agree with him on all his renderings - but I don't see how I could objectively do so.
No, I would like you to interact with the historical research I've presented, and then disagree with my conclusion with arguments and reasoning. If you won't do that, we're done here.

14. "I withdraw the implication that my post on BeggarsAll was somehow removed."
I know of no way to delete posts and then add them back to the blog. That would be a cool trick.