I've been intrigued by the alleged "Mariology" of the Reformers for years because of the argumentation of Roman Catholic apologists. I recently came across Wikipedia's John Calvin's views on Mary entry. I didn't get far into the entry before I came across a few facts that appeared odd. I'm going to work through the entry, time allowing. Previous entries are as follows:

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 1)

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 2)

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 3) Perpetual Virginity

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 4) Calvin Did Not Refer to Mary as "Mother of God"?

 Immaculate Conception
The wiki article states, "John Calvin did not accept the doctrine of immaculate conception, considering it conflicted with the aforementioned doctrines and with Romans 3:23 that all have sinned." Roman Catholic writer Peter Stravinskas in a published book states the opposite. Contrary to this, Stravinskas elsewhere states,

Did Calvin have anything specifically positive to say about Mary? Yes, he "commonly speaks of Mary as 'the holy Virgin' (and rarely as simply as 'Mary' preferring 'the Virgin', etc.)." Calvin "rarely depicts Mary expressly as a sinner" although he did object "to her specific exclusion from the reach of original sin by the Council of Trent." At Cana, for instance, Calvin considers the failing (sin) of Mary to have been her desire "to exceed humanity and to make herself an intermediary, which is to forget that grace is totally from God and at His disposal." Bouwsma recounts the charming story that "when Mary rebuked the boy Jesus for His truancy, Calvin apologized for her. 'The weariness of three days was in that complaint,' he explained." It seems that, often enough, Calvin went to particular lengths to assert that "Calvinists are not foes of Mary, but [that] they feel that they have given her true honor, whereas others have taken from God and given to Mary. Throughout Calvin's sermons on the Scriptures, there are occasional references to the dishonor rendered to Mary and to God by her various titles and by Roman theology."

What Stravinskas states above is from a few secondary sources: David Wright, Chosen By God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), p. 175; Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965) 133; William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p.123. What all these sources Stravinskas has strung together have in common is they point towards Calvin not being a supporter of Mary's immaculate conception.

Of these sources, the author that delves deeply into Calvin's view of this topic is Thomas O'Meara. He states, "There was no time in Calvin's life when he had any respect for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He found it unfounded, unscriptural, and unsubstantiated in Christian revelation" (p.131). Unfortunately, O'Meara documents this statement by referring to CR 45, 87-88 which is Calvin's comments on Luke 2:22-23. while Calvin does write on Mary and sin, the statement is not as explicit as O'Meara states:

22. And after that the days were fulfilled. On the fortieth day after the birth, (Leviticus 12:2,4,) the rite of purification was necessary to be performed. But Mary and Joseph come to Jerusalem for another reason, to present Christ to the Lord, because he was the first-born. Let us now speak first of the purification. Luke makes it apply both to Mary and to Christ: for the pronoun aujtw~n, of them, can have no reference whatever to Joseph. But it ought not to appear strange, that Christ, who was to be, made a curse for us on the cross,” (Galatians 3:13,) should, for our benefit, take upon him our uncleanness with respect to legal guilt, though he was “without blemish and without spot,” (1 Peter 1:19.) It ought not, I say, to appear strange, if the fountain of purity, in order to wash away our stains, chose to be reckoned unclean. It is a mistake to imagine that this law of purification was merely political, and that the woman was unclean in presence of her husband, not in presence of God. On the contrary, it placed before the eyes of the Jews both the corruption of their nature, and the remedy of divine grace.

This law is of itself abundantly sufficient to prove original sin, while it contains a striking proof of the grace of God. for there could not be a clearer demonstration of the curse pronounced on mankind than when the Lord declared, that the child comes from its mother unclean and polluted, and that the mother herself is consequently defiled by childbearing. Certainly, if man were not born a sinner, if he were not by nature a child of wrath, (Ephesians 2:3) if some taint of sin did not dwell in him, he would have no need of purification. Hence it follows, that all are corrupted in Adam; for the mouth of the Lord charges all with pollution.

It is in perfect consistency with this, that the Jews are spoken of, in other passages, as “holy branches of a holy root,” (Romans 11:16:) for this benefit did not properly belong to their own persons. They had been set apart, by the privilege of adoption, as an elect people; but the corruption, which they had by inheritance from Adam, was first in the order of time We must, therefore, distinguish between the first nature, and that special kindness through a covenant, by which God delivers his own people from the curse which had been pronounced on all. And the design of legal purification was to inform the Jews, that the pollutions, which they brought with them into the world at their birth, are washed away by the grace of God. Hence too we ought to learn, how dreadful is the contagion of sin, which defiles, in some measure, the lawful order of nature. I do own that childbearing is not unclean, and that what would otherwise be lust changes its character, through the sacredness of the marriage relation. But still the fountain of sin is so deep and abundant, that its constant overflowings stain what would otherwise be pure.

Some Roman Catholics may find Calvin's use of the phrase "holy virgin" an indicator of the immaculate conception. Rather O'Meara explains Calvin's view:

Sanctification signifies choice and separation, which take place in us when we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit in a newness of life. From the moment when we first touch Christ we live in the body of Christ, and Christ lives in us, or better, we live by his spirit.Separation for the work of God made Mary holy; her important role in the kingdom of God made her virtuous. She was, nevertheless, no different in justification and sanctity from any other Christian. She was given no special graces; there was no immaculate conception. Mary is privileged just as every man whom God justifies is privileged. Calvin's exegesis of the angel's words, "full of grace," brings forth a relative fullness. "Stephen was full of grace too (Acts 6:8). Christ alone has a complete fullness. Mary's grace is her approval by God for her faith, and this grace is a pure gift of God who does not consider persons when he bestows grace." Elsewhere Calvin notes Mary's dependence upon Christ for grace; she has nothing of her own. "It is certain that Mary cannot find grace before God without the Head [Christ]. She needs Christ as her redeemer as much as we do." Mary's grace came when she believed, not when she conceived, and her privilege of being the Mother of the Lord did not cause a more profound and complete sanctification. One aspect of Mary's sanctity is her mission among men. The secrets of Christ's birth were given to her so that she might tell the Apostles and tell us of the great mercy of God. The angel's words were addressed to Mary, but it is incorrect to see them as describing her, for they were addressed to all of us through Mary. Her blessedness among women exists because through her all women too will be blessed in learning of the salvation which has come (pp. 131-132).

O'Meara goes on to point out a specific example where Calvin may have attributed sin to Mary: "The particular sin which Calvin imputes to Mary (is it a sin, since Calvin says "she did not knowingly and willingly offend"?) is sufficient indication that the reformer of Geneva would eliminate any notion of Mary's special co-operation in the redemption of man and in the office of mediator. That precisely is her only error: to place herself between man and God. How often in the volumes of his works Calvin repeats the demand that Christ be the sole Mediator" (p. 133-134). O'Meara is referring to Calvin's comment on John 2:4-

4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Why does Christ repel her so rashly? I reply, though she was not moved by ambition, nor by any carnal affection, still she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ. Though it ought also to be observed, that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of others. Her modesty and piety were too great, to need so severe a chastisement. Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the danger, that no improper use may be made of what his mother had said, as if it were in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle.

The Greek words literally mean, What to me and to thee? But the Greek phraseology is of the same import with the Latin — Quid tibi mecum? (what hast thou to do with me?) The old translator led many people into a mistake, by supposing Christ to have asserted, that it was no concern of his, or of his mother’s, if the wine fell short. But from the second clause we may easily conclude how far removed this is from Christ’s meaning; for he takes upon himself this concern, and declares that it belongs to him to do so, when he adds, my hour is not yet come. Both ought to be joined together — that Christ understands what it is necessary for him to do, and yet that he will not act in this matter at his mother’s suggestion.

It is a remarkable passage certainly; for why does he absolutely refuse to his mother what he freely granted afterwards, on so many occasions, to all sorts of persons? Again, why is he not satisfied with a bare refusal? and why does he reduce her to the ordinary rank of women, and not even deign to call her mother? This saying of Christ openly and manifestly warns men to beware lest, by too superstitiously elevating the honor of the name of mother in the Virgin Mary, they transfer to her what belongs exclusively to God. Christ, therefore, addresses his mother in this manner, in order to lay down a perpetual and general instruction to all ages, that his divine glory must not be obscured by excessive honor paid to his mother. How necessary this warning became, in consequence of the gross and disgraceful superstitions which followed afterwards, is too well known. For Mary has been constituted the Queen of Heaven, the Hope, the Life, and the Salvation of the world; and, in short, their fury and madness proceeded so far that they stripped Christ of his spoils, and left him almost naked. And when we condemn those horrid blasphemies against the Son of God, the Papists call us malignant and envious; and — what is worse — they maliciously slander us as deadly foes to the honor of the holy Virgin. As if she had not all the honor that is due to her, unless she were made a Goddess; or as if it were treating her with respect, to adorn her with blasphemous titles, and to substitute her in the room of Christ. The Papists, therefore, offer a grievous insult to Mary when, in order to disfigure her by false praises, they take from God what belongs to Him.

One final example that perhaps clearly affirms Calvin did not support Mary's immaculate conception comes from a statement he made about the sixth session of the Council of Trent:

CANON 23.
We condemn those who affirm that a man once justified cannot sin, and likewise those who deny that the truly justified ever fall: those in like manner who assert that a man regenerated by the Spirit of God is able to abstain even from the least sins. These are the delirious dreams of fanatics, who either with devilish arrogance deceive, or with hypocrisy fascinate the minds of men, or plot to lead them to the precipice of despair. As to the special privilege of the Virgin Mary, when they produce the celestial diploma we shall believe what they say: for to what do they here give the name of the Church, but just to the Council of Clermont? Augustine was certainly a member of the Church, and though he in one passage chooses, in order to avoid obloquy, rather to be silent respecting the blessed Virgin, he uniformly, without making her an exception, describes the Whole race of Adam as involved in sin. Nay, he even almost in distinct terms classes her among sinners, when writing to Marcellinus, he says, They err greatly who hold that any of the saints except Christ require not to use this prayer, “Forgive us our debts.” In so doing, they by no means please the saints whom they laud. Chrysostom and Ambrose, who suspect her of having been tempted by ambition, were members of the Church. All these things I mention for no other end but to let my readers understand that there is no figment so nugatory as not to be classed by these blockheads among the Articles of Faith.

I have been witnessing and interacting with some Muslims on line recently, at Paul Bilal Williams blog.
Interesting that Paul Williams then grabbed a few "choice quotes" and says that they "go to the heart of the matter".  Indeed, the heart of the matter is the human heart, which is full of sin(Genesis 6:5), in bondage to sin(John 8:34), and causes us to be unclean and defiled, and is the root of sin and causes us to be guilty enough to be sent to hell.  Jesus said this in Matthew 5:21-26 (the roots of murder are anger and hatred); Matthew 5:27-30 (the roots of adultery are sexual lust) and Mark 7:20-23 (the roots of all sins are the evil thoughts within the heart.)

Here is some of it reproduced below, with 3 (or 4) Muslims, Muhammad Al-Hakeem, Abbas, and Erik, and also some one who goes by "Semsav12"   - with some editorial changes for space reasons.  There are some things I took out and some things I added, but the ideas were from other sections of our exchange, in order to make it understandable.  Feel free to visit the link above and see other details and more interaction in the com-boxes.  I am not reproducing everything here.

Ken writes: 

You assume that humans can sincerely repent. (without the grace of God in regeneration) Romans 3:9-23 – there is no one who is sincere and no one seeks for God and no one has perfect repentance. Not committing physical adultery is not enough; for you have selfish lusts in your heart. (Matthew 5:27-30) And that lust sends you to hell. Isa Al Masih said this. Not committing actual murder is not enough, for you have hatred and anger in your heart, and that anger and hatred sends you to hell. (Matthew 5:21-26) That anger and hatred sends you to hell. The roots of sin are in the thoughts, and motives in the heart. (Mark 7:20-23) External washings cannot cleanse your heart of your jealousy, pride, selfishness, lust, anger, self-pity, foolishness, rancor, bitterness. God does not wink at sin. You denigrate the holiness of God. Forgiveness was based on the sacrifice/atonement in the Torah and Old Testament. Why do you think God set up the sacrificial system in the book of Exodus and Leviticus? Why did God substitute an innocent ram in the place of Abraham’s son? (Genesis 22) Yahya [the Arabic Qur'anic form for John the Baptist]  said and about Jesus (Isa Al Masih), “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) 



Muhammad Al-Hakeem:  not by making the [cross/atonement/Christ's sacrifice] only way to wipe out sin –


The Scriptures are clear – Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. Hebrews 9:22  [see also 1 John 2:2; Revelation 5:9] The whole book of Hebrews, especially chapters 8, 9, and 10 explain how Christ’s death was the final sacrifice and final atonement for sin, and fulfillment of the sacrificial system in the Torah and Old Testament.

I've been intrigued by the alleged "Mariology" of the Reformers for years because of the argumentation of Roman Catholic apologists. I recently came across Wikipedia's John Calvin's views on Mary entry. I didn't get far into the entry before I came across a few facts that appeared odd. I'm going to work through the entry, time allowing. Previous entries are as follows:

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 1)

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 2)

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 3) Perpetual Virginity

Mother of God
The article contains a section on Calvin and the phrase Mother of God: "It has been argued that Mary was, in Calvin's view, properly called the Mother of God." This time, the Wiki article does an adequate job with some of the facts, but never arrives at an actual conclusion as to Calvin properly calling Mary the Mother of God. Calvin's use (or lack thereof) is an interesting topic, particularly as it relates to Roman Catholic apologetics.

Calvin's comments on Luke 1:43 are most frequently cited by Roman apologists.  There Calvin mentions Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of her Lord." To demonstrate how popular this comment from Calvin is within Romanism, note but a few examples. Citing this reference, John Pasquini states in his books Catholic Answers to Protestant Questions and True Christianity the Catholic Way, "Even John Calvin recognized the reality of Mary as the Mother of God!" EWTN hosts a webpage that states, "The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God." The oft-quoted web article, The Protestant Reformers On Mary uses it. Roman apologist Scott Windsor has an article with the same Calvin quote. One Roman apologist cites Calvin's comment on Luke 1:43 as proof that,

"...anti-Marianism runs strong in Protestant circles, in reaction to what they perceive as an 'excessive Mariology' in the Catholic Church. So they become downright irrational in their opposition to 'Mother of God.' This opposition, however, is not intrinsic to Protestantism, since early Protestant leaders Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Bullinger all used the term 'Mother of God' (or at least described the same concept in slightly different terms)."

These Roman Catholic documents make bold assertions in regard to Calvin's comments on Luke 1:43. Keep in mind, in the context of Calvin's comments, the phrase "Mother of God" is not used. In fact, when Calvin states, "She calls Mary the mother of her Lord" the comment is simply the biblical phrase Calvin is going to comment on. That is, in Calvin's commentaries he picks a particular biblical phrase and then comments. Here's how Calvin's commentary on Luke 1:43 looks in context, as produced in my electronic version:

43. And whence is this to me? The happy medium observed by Elisabeth is worthy of notice. She thinks very highly of the favors bestowed by God on Mary, and gives them just commendation, but yet does not praise them more highly than was proper, which would have been a dishonor to God. For such is the native depravity of the world, that there are few persons who are not chargeable with one of these two faults. Some, delighted beyond measure with themselves, and desirous to shine alone, enviously despise the gifts of God in their brethren; while others praise them in so superstitious a manner as to convert them into idols. The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the footstool. Elisabeth, again, while she praises her, is so far from hiding the Divine glory, that she ascribes everything to God. And yet, though she acknowledges the superiority of Mary to herself and to others, she does not envy her the higher distinction, but modestly declares that she had obtained more than she deserved.

She calls Mary the mother of her Lord. This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. For we must bear in mind, that she does not speak like an ordinary woman at her own suggestion, but merely utters what was dictated by the Holy Spirit. This name Lord strictly belongs to the Son of God “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16,) who has received from the Father all power, and has been appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may govern all things. Still, he is in a peculiar manner the Lord of believers, who yield willingly and cheerfully to his authority; for it is only of “his body” that he is “the head,” (Ephesians 1:22, 23.) And so Paul says, “though there be lords many, yet to us,” that is, to the servants of faith, “there is one Lord,” (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.) By mentioning the sudden movement of the babe which she carried in her womb, (ver. 44,) as heightening that divine favor of which she is speaking, she unquestionably intended to affirm that she felt something supernatural and divine.

In some English translations of Calvin's commentaries, the particular biblical Phrase Calvin is going to comment on is highlighted is some sense, usually by being italicized. One need only read Calvin's explanation of the text that he isn't concerned with securing the popular phrase "Mother of God."

The key argument though to Calvin's opinion on the title "Mother of God" is not found in this simple passing commentary of Luke 1:43. Rather, it's found in a letter Calvin wrote September 27, 1552 to the French Church in London. They had written to him and asked, "Is it lawful to call Mary the Mother of God?" Calvin responds,

Concerning the other debatable points, I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest. However, to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church.

This comment clearly expresses what Calvin thought of the title "Mother of God." The Wiki article goes on to mention,"Calvin never explicitly refers to Mary as the 'Mother of God'." I found this assertion rather unbelievable, but as I've sifted through my collection of Calvin's writings, I've yet to find Calvin using the phrase. Roman Catholic writer Thomas O'Meara mentions this lack of usage is sometimes used to prove Calvin was "a Nestorian in disguise." He states, "One reason for this which is commonly advanced is that Calvin nowhere calls Mary Theotokos, or the Mother of God."  He mentions Calvin does write at one point, "Mother of the Son of God." Ultimately, O'Meara arrives at the same letter from 1552 and states, "The reason for his hesitancy [to use "Mother of God"] seems to be based upon a fear of falling into what he saw as the excesses of the past."

I've been intrigued by the alleged "Mariology" of the Reformers for years because of the argumentation of Roman Catholic apologists. I recently came across Wikipedia's John Calvin's views on Mary entry. I didn't get far into the entry before I came across a few facts that appeared odd. I'm going to work through the entry, time allowing. Previous entries are as follows:

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 1)

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 2)

My guess is that this is someone's term paper, and they decided to post it on Wikipedia. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but in this instance it serves as reminder to be careful with the information found on Wikipedia. Rather than being an informative source of knowledge on Calvin, the entry serves as a reminder to check facts.

Here's another odd fact from the Wiki entry:

In the Genevan Catechism, Calvin writes of Mary that she gave birth to Jesus through the Holy Spirit without the participation of any man, and hence he held her to be a virgin during her pregnancy and rejects the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, citing flexibility in the terms used.[4] Likewise, he argues that in Matthew 1:25 ("[Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son") the term "firstborn" and the conjunction "till" certainly contradict the doctrine of perpetual virginity.[5]

Footnotes
[4] Calvin. "Commentary on Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 2. Retrieved 2009-01-07. "The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned."
[5] Calvin. "Commentary on Matthew 1:25". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. Retrieved 2009-01-07. "Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."

The Genevan Catechism appears to say something different than Mary "gave birth to Jesus through the Holy Spirit without the participation of any man, and hence he held her to be a virgin during her pregnancy and rejects the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, citing flexibility in the terms used." I utilized a 1538 version. Perhaps the author of the Wiki article had a later revision?

The Catechism states:

He was born of the Virgin Mary that he might be recognized as the true son of Abraham and David, who had been promised in the Law and the Prophets; as the true man, like us in all things, save only sin, who having been tried by all our infirmities learned to bear with them. Yet that same one was conceived in the Virgin's womb by the wonderful and ineffable (to us) power of the Holy Spirit, that he might not be fouled by any physical corruption, but might be born sanctified with the highest purity.

The Catechism mentions the work of the Holy Spirit, but it doesn't explicitly say "without the participation of any man" nor does it explicitly say "he held her to be a virgin during her pregnancy." Certainly these statements are not contradictory to that expressed in the Catechism. It appears though whoever wrote this entry had some of Calvin's other comments in mind. This is best shown that in the Catechism, Calvin does not comment on his rejection of "the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, citing flexibility in the terms used." Rather, the Wiki entry seems to be getting this from that cited in footnote #4, which is Calvin's comment on Matthew 13:55.

The notion that Calvin rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary "citing flexibility in the terms used" isn't quite correct. If one compares Calvin's comments on Matthew 13:55 with those on Matthew 1:25, Calvin's position is that the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards to Mary. Calvin calls it “folly” at one point, when describing those who wish to make a text say more than it does. Those who would make a necessary inference where the Gospel writer has only made a possible inference engage in folly (according to Calvin). In other words, he doesn't conclude if she was a perpetual virgin or not.

Similarly, the Wiki article states, "Likewise, he argues that in Matthew 1:25 ('[Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son') the term 'firstborn' and the conjunction 'till' certainly contradict the doctrine of perpetual virginity," citing Calvin's comment on Matthew 1:25. Calvin's comment, "It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time" could be construed to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, but, he clarifies his comment by saying that the Scriptures don't give us information as to what happened afterward. I certainly would enjoy a clear statement from Calvin rejecting perpetual virginity, but Calvin's comment here certainly isn't it.

What's also odd about the Wiki entry is that earlier it states, "Calvin shows a decidedly positive view of Mary, and he did not hold to a number of the Protestant views on her that became common after the Reformation." One would think that the author of this Wiki entry would have argued that Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary (as many Roman Catholics do, citing the same evidence). The entry then presents some interesting comments from Calvin:

At the same time, Calvin argues that the claims that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity in Luke 1:34 ("How shall this be, since I know not a man?") is "unfounded and altogether absurd," and moreover he says that, had she taken such a vow, "[s]he would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage...."[6] Although Algermissen suggests that Calvin believed that Mary in this verse looked into the future and recognized, that in light of this special grace, any contact with a man would be excluded for her,[7] this interpretation takes an objection Calvin is refuting in his commentary and makes it his own position.[8]

 Footnotes
 6) Calvin. "Commentary on Luke 1:34". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke 1. Retrieved 2009-01-07. "The conjecture which some have drawn from these words ['How shall this be, since I know not a man?'], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews."

7)Algermissen 6418) Calvin. "Commentary on Luke 1:34". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke 1. Retrieved 2009-01-07. "We must reply, however, to another objection, that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man."

 Here again with these comments, one would be strongly tempted to say Calvin denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. One could probably read between the lines and conclude this. However, Calvin still doesn't come right out and say it. In fact, if one reads the context of that cited in footnote #8, it becomes apparent that the subject of perpetual virginity isn't to be considered, one way or the other, in Luke 1:34:

We must reply, however, to another objection, that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is, that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment. When she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, How shall this be? And so God graciously forgives her, and replies kindly and gently by the angel, because, in a devout and serious manner, and with admiration of a divine work, she had inquired how that would be, which, she was convinced, went beyond the common and ordinary course of nature. In a word, this question was not so contrary to faith, because it arose rather from admiration than from distrust.   

One thing is quite certain from Calvin's comments on Mary and perpetual virginity. Those Roman apologists that think Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary haven't read these comments from Calvin closely.  One typical argument is the appeal to authority: that certain Calvin scholars say Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. Certainly the opinions of scholars are helpful, but this appears to me to be the same sort of situation that occurred when Rome's defenders try to argue Luther had a lifelong commitment to the immaculate conception. The evidence that the scholars use must be evaluated.  

The gunmen have devastated this Christian monastery, taken away the church vessels, blown up the bell tower, and destroyed the chancel and the font, the Monastery's Abbot Gadir Ibrahim reported on Saturday.
On top of all that, according to the Abbot, they have demolished the statue of the Old Testament Prophet who is venerated in Syria by both Christians and Muslims.

(Source)

 I'm sure they didn't mean to, but the opposition did everyone in the region a favor, spiritually speaking, unwittingly preventing them from incurring further condemnation upon themselves.


2 Kings 18:1-5

Now it came about in the third year of Hoshea, the son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah became king. He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. He did right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David had done. He removed the high places and broke down the sacred pillars and cut down the Asherah. He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan. He trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel; so that after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him.

I know it should not come as a surprise that people are already thinking about the 500th anniversary of Luther's posting of the 95 Theses (the traditional date of the birth of the Protestant Reformation). Contrary to what many of you may think, I don't really think about it. I don't have a calender in which I'm putting "x's" over the passing dates with a gleeful anticipation.  I am surprised though at the few people I've come across that are already thinking about it. Perhaps it's because I read more Roman Catholic blogs and websites than Protestant Internet offerings. A few years back, I pointed out that Mitch Pacwa was working on a Reformation video series to be released in 2017. From a quick search, it doesn't appear there's been a lot of action from Ignatius Productions, but, they do still have a few years to go. Back when he first announced it, Pacwa was perpetuating the myth that Luther "apparently had killed somebody in a duel." I'd be curious to know how Pacwa's research  is going, and if it's gotten better.

Recently, I came across a Roman convert, Thomas Howard, offering his thoughts on the upcoming anniversary: Protestant Reformation Approaching 500. He mentions he and Mark Noll (author of Is The Reformation Over?) received a grant to host a conference on the upcoming 500th anniversary of the Reformation in November 2013. That to me comes across as somewhat of an irony: A Roman convert (someone who in essence should see the Reformation as a tragedy) and an evangelical (who thinks the Reformation is over) were given money to hold a conference to discuss "how best to commemorate the Reformation 500 years after the fact" "in anticipation of the upcoming milestone." Certainly no analogy is perfect, but it's kind of like giving money to two people who don't like you to plan your 50th birthday party. The first person belongs to family that should view your life as a tragic necessity, and the other thinks your life is over.

Mr. Howard states:

"...as the Reformation quincentennial approaches, Catholics ought to try to think about why so many, then and now, felt the necessity of the Reformation. Conversely, Protestants ought to consider why Catholics, then and now, have perceived it as tragic. That might not answer all questions, mend all divisions. But it might not be a bad place to start."

These are loaded questions, and I'd like to suggest that Roman Catholics not think about these questions, but rather ask Rome to answer the questions for you. Why should anyone be interested in hearing a Roman Catholic give their personal interpretation of history? Wouldn't one rather have an official spokesperson from Rome explain why the Roman church anathematized the Gospel and separated herself from the Catholic church? Ask them as well why Rome never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and why no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound. Tell them your tired of the confusion of opinions- how some Roman historians think Luther was the voice of Satan, while some Roman Catholic historians think he was a decent guy.

Addendum
This little aside didn't fit with my sarcastic jabs above. I'd like to suggest that a good study in preparation of the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation would be to explore earlier anniversaries of the Reformation, Particularly the 400th Anniversary. What  was going on in Germany in 1917? Or 1817? Will the PCUSA do this again? Should this be reprinted? Mr. Howard, if you come across this blog entry, feel free to make this one of the points of discussion in your November 2013 conference. In fact, feel free to invite me to present the lecture.

Another fascinating study, and perhaps Thomas Howard would benefit from this one, is a study in Roman Catholic treatments of Luther between 1883-1917. There was quite a resurgence in the vilification of Luther from the pens of Rome's defenders, some of whom had a noted zeal to besmirch the memory of Luther forever as a way to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the Reformation. I'll gladly give this lecture as well as the November 2013 conference.

Christ taught: “You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof” [John 8:44]...Luther teaches: “To lie in a case of necessity or for convenience or in excuse – such lying would not be against God; He was ready to take such lies on Himself” (Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 375.)

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 Luther taught contrarily to Jesus on lying. This has been a popular charge against Luther for centuries- that he blatantly taught lying was an acceptable practice.

Documentation 
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 375." Lenz refers to German historian  Max Lenz. Lenz edited the correspondence and documents related to Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse. "Briefwechsel" refers to correspondence, so this particular reference appears to be to his work,  Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp mit Bucer. Vol. I. Leipzig. 1880. This volume covers materials from February 1540 to February 1546 from Phillip of Hesse. Here is page 375 which documents material from  the a protocol to the Eisenach Conference, July 17, 1540. The quote therefore is not specifically to one of Luther's writings. It is actually from documentation of what was said at this meeting.

The chances that Luther, Exposing the Myth actually used Lenz as the source for this quote are slim. If this source was used, the quote was mined out of a writing from an out-of-print book from something written in German and then translated into English.  As with other quotes used by this webpage, it was probably taken from Peter Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, page 41. Wiener probably took the quote from Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther, His Life and His Work (Maryland: Newman Press, 1930), p. 522 or Grisar's Luther IV page 51. Wiener uses two quotes in the same order and documentation as that presented by Grisar (and also Luther, Exposing the Myth does the same).  So, the ultimate source for this quote is in this form is probably Grisar. As I've looked into this quote, it appears that Grisar is the primary source for the English translation, and perhaps the only source for the English translation in its multiple uses on contemporary Internet webpages. Denifle provides the following, typical of Roman polemicists in regard to the context:

On July 17, the Reformer went to still worse lengths. There is much that is right before God, he said, which before the world must be suppressed. Were one to acknowledge all that is right before God, not right before the world, that is the devil's work. That the Landgrave cannot compass some stout lies, it matters not. There is a maiden here concerned. He would lose land and people, were he to attempt to stick to his decision. "A lie of necessity, a lie of utility, a helping lie — to bring about such lies were not against God; he would take them upon himself." They had granted a dispensation to the Landgrave, because it was a case of necessity. He and his associates "give the advice and suffer him to retain the maiden secretly and on denial or "he should bear no burden in telling a lie on account of the girl for the sake of the advantage to Christendom and all the world."

A curious thing about this quote (and another covered previously) is that one would think the context for such a popular quote would be easy to track down. That is, a context would be readily available. But it isn't. The reason is probably due to the complexity of the primary source. the source appears to be the account of a meeting, not a specific writing. Moreover, it's usually the case that Internet polemicists don't really care what a context says anyhow. That has been my finding, particularly with Roman Catholic polemicists.



Historical Context 
If you've got a Luther biography, chances are a treatment of the incident of Philip's bigamy is included. As it stands though in English, the most thorough historical thorough treatment of the bigamy of Philip of Hesse incident may be that found in Grisar's Luther IV (and this would be a Roman Catholic evaluation).  It begins on page 13 and stretches to page 79. The strength of Grisar's treatment is his attention to detail. I've discussed the historical context of this incident before, and I've done a number of entries on Luther and polygamy or bigamy. To attempt to provide a complete historical response to Grisar would probably wind up being the size of a small book. That being said, Grisar was responded to by his contemporaries:

1) W.H.T. Dau, Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Revaluation. Dau almost certainly had Grisar in mind throughout this book. His discussion of this incident begins on page 225 and ends on page 235.

2) Heinrich Boehmer, Luther and the Reformation in the Light of Modern Research (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1930), 213-224.  An earlier shorter version of this book is available online, with the discussion beginning on page 227. Boehmer also wrote in light of Grisar's work.


Luther and Lying
The main thrust of Luther, Exposing the Myth with this quote is not bigamy, but rather the aspect of lying. Boehmer tackles this directly:

But even if the reformer was not a falsifier, did he not take up a very equivocal attitude towards the commandment of truthfulness and himself transgress this commandment in the most reprehensible way? It is true, indeed, that he did not scruple to declare Nutzlügen, expedient or beneficial lies, as theoretically permissible, and in one' famous case even advocated such a white lie. These are facts which are beyond doubt, but let us once more listen to the accused before indulging in the exquisite pleasure of outraged morality. Luther defines as "Nutzlügen" those lies which are told for the advantage and happiness of another, such as the lie of the Egyptian midwives in favour of the Hebrew male children whom they were ordered by Pharaoh to throw into the Nile (Exodus 1. 18, 19). Certain early Christian theologians such as Hilarius, Chrysostomn, Cassian, also declared such beneficial lies to be, morally blameless. Augustine, however, stamped them as sinful, and he was followed by St. Thomas and the whole Thomist school; still they regarded this kind of lie as a venial sin, and on the other hand held the clever concealment of the truth (dissimulatio) to be permissible. Other theologians were of opinion that in certain circumstances it might be a greater sin to speak the truth than to be guilty of a Nutzlüge. For it is only the harmful lie which God unconditionally forbids (mendacium adversus proximum prohibet), the beneficial lie He only restricts (pro proximo cohibet). Luther adopted the latter view, but in many respects, while choosing almost the same examples as illustrations went along lines of his own. He found that the Holy Fathers in the Bible had occasionally made use of the Nutzlüge without their conduct receiving blame on that account from the authors of the Holy Scriptures; indeed it seemed to him that St. Paul, Christ and God did not always say exactly what they meant. This to him was sufficient to prove the permissibility not only of the ordinary lie of necessity, but also of the expedient lie to the benefit and advantage of one's neighbor. This method of proof will not be countenanced by any Protestant today. But that does not prove that Luther was wrong in, his view of the question itself  As far as the question itself' is concerned, most ethical writers think exactly as he does, with the exception of a few rigorists. And even those rigorists often find their principles very hard pressing among the minor and major emergencies of life...[Boehmer (1930), 211-212].

 While not a primary source, Preserved Smith includes a Table Talk entry on what Luther is purported to have stated about lies:

33. CONCERNING LIES
Lies are of four kinds: First the sportive lie, a hearty, ludicrous jest, which affords amusement or cheers up those who are depressed. Second the charitable lie, a good useful lie, which springs from the desire to help our kindred or our friends, as for example, that of Abraham, when he said that his wife Sarah was his sister, or of Michal, when she saved David, or of Elisha, when he said to the Syrians: 'This is not the way, nor is this the city.' The third kind is the noxious lie, which seeks to deceive and injure, according to the way of the world. The fourth is the irreverent lie, by which God is blasphemed. The first two are praiseworthy, since they do no harm; the last two are intolerable, since they offend both man and God. There is also another kind, namely, the necessary lie, although it does not differ much from the second kind, the charitable; and this may be resorted to without fault, if it is not accompanied by an oath such as 'really,' 'truly,' 'by God,' or the like." "A liar is far worse than a murderer and does more harm, because he deceives, while the murderer is unable to deceive. Judas, however, was both a liar and a murderer, like his father the devil." "It is a marvel that when Judas was eating at table with Christ and the disciples he should not have blushed with shame,when Christ said  'One of you shall betray me.' The other disciples had not the slightest suspicion that Judas was about to betray Christ; each one feared indeed that he himself would be the traitor rather than Judas, to whom Christ had entrusted the purse and the whole business management, on account of which he was held in the highest esteem among the apostles."

This statement finds some verification in the transcripts of Luther's Genesis Commentary. In regard to Genesis 12:3, Luther is said to have stated:

Thus this passage has given rise not only to many questions but also to a variety of offenses; for Abraham values his own life more highly than the chastity of his wife and the welfare of others. We shall first speak about lying, concerning which Jerome and Augustine engage in an argument. Augustine assumes three kinds of lies: the playful, the obliging, and the deadly. Playful lies he calls those of poets or of actors on the stage. We know that they are lying when they represent something as actually having been done; yet the lie does no harm and is even pleasing, because it entertains and provokes laughter. This, therefore, can be termed a literary sin. The second kind of lie is the obliging one, when we lie for the sake of someone’s good, as Michal lies when she says (1 Sam. 19:17) that David had threatened her with death. Augustine relates the example of a certain bishop who was unwilling to betray someone who had taken refuge with him. Such is the lie of Hushai the Archite (2 Sam. 15:34) and that of the woman at the well of רֹגֶל (2 Sam. 17:20). This lie is called “obliging” because it not only serves the advantage of someone else, who would otherwise suffer harm or violence, but also prevents a sin. Therefore it is not proper to call it a lie; for it is rather a virtue and outstanding prudence, by which both the fury of Satan is hindered and the honor, life, and advantages of others are served. For this reason it can be called pious concern for the brethren, or, in Paul’s language, zeal for piety. Strictly defined, it is a lie when our neighbor is deceived by us to his ruin and our own advantage. Out of respect for the fathers I am keeping this distinction, even though it is not precise enough[Luther, M. (1999, c1960). Vol. 2: Luther's works, vol. 2 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 6-14 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (2:291). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Conclusion
When Luther's actual views on lying are fleshed out a bit, it becomes apparent how a simple context-less quote can mean something more than it intends.  Luther did not believe that lying in all its various forms was allowable.  As a trained medieval theologian, he made crucial distinctions.

The question as I see it in regard to the historical context of the quote is if the situation was such that a lie of necessity was prudent and acceptable. That's a different question. In the end, Luther was to find out that Philip was not entirely honest about his extra-marital activities and said that had he knew beforehand, he would never have given Philip permission to take a second wife. Even after the entire situation was exposed, more controversy followed as supporters of Philip published treatises defending his polygamy. Luther immediately began writing against this, writing things like, "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (Martin Brecht, Martin Luther the Preservation of the Church Vol. 3 1532-1546 , p. 214). This writing was stopped for publication for political reasons. Brecht concludes that in the end Luther realized giving confessional advise to Philip was one of the worst mistakes he made (p. 214).

"They have sunk deep into corruption...God will remember their wickedness and punish them for their sins... Even if they rear children, I will bereave them of every one... Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry... Even if they bear children I will slay their cherished offspring."

No, these aren't the words of Luther, these are excerpts from Hosea chapter 9.

I just finished reading a fascinating short article by Ronald F. Marshall, Luther’s Alleged Anti-Semitism. This is volatile topic for obvious reasons. I distinctly remember the first time I discovered Luther's treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies. The statements from Luther against the Jews are shocking, particularly in our post-Holocaust society. Recently at a friend's house, he shared with me a private photo collection of Jews being liberated from a concentration camp, pictures taken by one of his relatives who was part of the liberating force. The pictures were horrifying (and yes, I exhorted him to contact a Jewish Holocaust museum, or some such authority). Yes, I know logically that Luther was not Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (as a popular book asserts). Reading Luther's later writings against the Jews though, one can't help avoiding the emotional connection.     

That being said, this article from Marshall attempts to place Luther's writings in a Biblical framework, building off the thesis that Luther wasn't against Jewish people (which is antisemitism), but rather Judaism. This is probably one of the only articles I've ever read that seeks to justify Luther's comments by appealing to the Scriptures as the backdrop by which to interpret Luther's statements.  The author states,

Even in the Old Testament, quite apart from Luther’s treatise, God tries to scare the Jews straight. Again and again he punishes them mercilessly, especially through invading military powers under the leadership of Cyrus (Isa 44:28) and Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 39:3). In Hosea, God specifically says of the disobedient Jews—quite abhorrently—that their children should be killed, their families become infertile, and that they should be driven from their homes and made to wander among the nations (Hos 9:7–17). It is important to note the similarities between this passage and Hitler’s playbook. This helps one see the horrible truth about the ghastly nature of the Bible. Attacking Luther’s alleged anti-Semitism in the name of some fabricated and exclusively loving Bible is to tangle oneself up in theological chicanery. The message of the Bible is tough, and one has to settle for that or throw it out. All sophisticated, urbane efforts to clean up the Bible fail by the death of a thousand qualifications.

Frankly, I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this approach. The author insists that Luther "favored punishments [for the Jews] first to witness to the Holy Scriptures, for Jesus himself rebuked the Jews (AE 47: 277). Second, he intended these punishments to scare the Jews straight so that they might receive God’s blessings (AE 47: 267)." It's certainly one thing for the Scriptures to do this, quite another for a society to act on it.  The strength of this article is placing Luther's comments in his theological and Biblical framework, a framework Luther was fluent in. The weakness, as I see it, is that the church and state were connected in such a way during the sixteenth-century that a theologian with political powers could have acted on Luther's suggestions. In God's providence, Luther's harsh statements were not acted on, which shows at least that Protestant princes simply did not put in to practice whatever came from his pen. All in all, the article is food for thought and a significant contribution to the study of this issue.

Addendum

  “Most of Luther’s proposals [in On The Jews and Their Lies] are paralleled in the other anti-Jewish literature of the period, but the specific formulation which follows may be attributed to him. Fortunately… most of the authorities proved unwilling to carry out his recommendations, whether out of horror at their inhumanity or out of self-interest (since Jews played an important role in the economy).”[LW 47:267 (fn. 173)]

“Already upon its first appearance in the year 1543, Luther’s treatise caused widespread dismay, not only among contemporary Jews but also in Protestant circles. Melanchthon and Osiander are known to have been unhappy with its severity. Henry Bullinger, in correspondence with Martin Bucer, remarked that Luther’s views reminded him of those of the Inquisitors. And a subsequent document prepared by the churches of Zurich declared (speaking specifically of the treatise Vom Schem Hamphoras , published later in 1543), that “if it had been written by a swineherd, rather than by a celebrated shepherd of souls, it might have some—but very little—justification.” [LW 47:123]

“Nobody took Luther's programme seriously, and the new mandate of John Frederick in 1543, though severe, was on other lines. Three years later, as we shall see, Jews were still living unmolested in the Mansfeld area.”[Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther and the Jews (London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 1972), 18. ]

“As we follow Luther through the years, we find a signal instance of how we become like what we hate. We see a growing obstinacy, a hardening of heart, a withering of compassion, a proneness to contemptuous abuse—the very things he thought were the marks of judgment on the Jews.”[Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther and the Jews (London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 1972), 22]

“The question of Protestant acceptance or rejection of Luther's writings on the Jews is focused on his late, hate-filled polemics. Oberman has pointed out that Luther's close associate, Philipp Melanchthon, ‘was just as unhappy over the harsh writings on the Jews of the late Luther as were some of the leading city reformers.’ The Nuremberg Reformer and disciple of Luther, Osiander... wrote an anonymous apology for Luther's polemics. And Luther's lifelong colleague Justus Jonas used his role as Latin translator of Luther's writings against the Jews to do ‘his utmost to offset Luther's exasperated disenchantment with the mission to the Jews and in the process manages to draw an entirely novel and positive picture of them.’ This selective rejection of Luther is evident in the refusal of evangelical political authorities to follow through on Luther's recommendations. Because Luther was such an authority figure for Lutherans, it is striking that in 1611 when the Lutheran city of Hamburg asked the theological faculties of Jena and Frankfurt an der Oder whether the Jews fleeing from Portugal should have the right to remain in the city, both faculties answered in the affirmative. The Jena opinion self-consciously chose Luther's early, tolerant opinions over his later, intolerant ones. More important for future developments was the fact that Luther's portrayals and recommendations were not incorporated into the Lutheran confessional writings and Lutheran devotional literature. ‘For the decades after Luther's death all the evidence seems to support Lewin's thesis that Luther's late works on the Jews failed to achieve their intended effect.’”[Carter Lindberg, “Tainted Greatness: Luther’s Attitudes Toward Judaism and Their Historical Reception,” in Nancy A Harrowitz (ed.), Tainted Greatness: Antisemitism and Cultural Heroes (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), 23]

“The reaction of contemporaries to Luther's anti-Jewish writings indicates fairly clearly that his readers saw a significant difference between the early and the later treatises. That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew appears to have been received with favor among Protestants, Jews, and Jewish converts (Marranos). Some Marranos in the Netherlands may even have translated the work into Spanish and sent copies to their brethren in Spain. The treatise may have even reached Palestine. It may also have encouraged several South Germans to work for the amelioration of the treatment of the Jews. On the other hand, it may have lent some support to the Catholic charge, aired, for instance, at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, that the Protestants had learned their doctrine from the Jews. The later tracts met with more criticism. Catholics, not surprisingly, were sharply critical. For instance, at the 1545 Diet of Worms several Catholic deputies reportedly characterized On the Ineffable Name as a "hateful book, as cruel as if it had been written in blood," and argued that it incited the rabble to violence.”[Mark U Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 134]

“Protestant reaction was mixed. Melanchthon sent a copy of On the Jews and Their Lies to Landgrave Philipp of Hesse with the mild recommendation that the book contained "much useful teaching." When he sent a copy of On the Ineffable Name, however, he failed to add a similar recommendation. It is hard to say whether this indicates disapproval; generally speaking, Melanchthon was uncomfortable with the violent tone of many of the writings of the older Luther. Andreas Osiander of Nuremberg appears to have been critical of the work, although unwilling to confront Luther with his objections. Luther's Zurich opponents, the authors of the 1545 True Confession, branded Luther's On the Ineffable Name as "swinish" and "filthy," and remarked that had it been written by a swineherd and not by a famous shepherd of souls, there might have been some although little excuse for it.”[Mark U Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 135]

I came across a blog entry entitled, Martin Luther and his Naiveté that suggests the following:

Many protestants will be surprised to learn that Martin Luther, who is most famous for jump-starting the "Great Protestant Reformation" by nailing his Ninety-five Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Saxony, was convinced that the Pope (at that time, Leo X) was morally innocent in the following threat of excommunication against him. Instead, Luther honestly thought that the Roman Curia was the real problem...

Leo issued his papal bull Exsurge Domine ("Rise up, O Lord"), threatening Luther with excommunication from the Church, which Luther received in October. Under the threat of excommunication, Luther heeded some council of the Augustinians, who wanted Luther to write a letter to Leo explaining that he never intended to attack him personally.

Excerpts are then quoted from Luther's open letter to Pope Leo X, a letter which served to introduce Luther's treatise, The Freedom of a Christian, 1520.

It certainly is true that this open letter appears hospitable to Pope Leo. This is one of a number of letters from Luther written in the conventional, curialistic style which was the accepted means of dialog with Rome. Roman Catholic polemicists have been prone to seize these letters as proof that Luther was either a liar, two-faced,  insincere, etc. In actuality, the letters were written by a man in a difficult life-threatening situation attempting to negotiate his survival, yet do so with the integrity of his convictions.

 The open letter though in question is however, not as wonderful as a simple surfacing reading suggests. It was a suggestion by a Roman diplomat, Carl von Miltitz, a man who was supposed to bring Luther back to Rome,  but actually sympathized with his cause against Tetzel. He had hopes of settling the controversy in Germany for Luther's sake. It appears to be his idea that Luther write a letter stating he had never attacked the Pope's person. But did Luther pull it off?

The editors of the Philadelphia Edition of Luther's Works point out ways in which this open letter wasn't as nice as some may think:

It is again a question whether the pope received this letter. It has been an interesting speculation for more than one writer, what the thoughts and feelings of Leo the Tenth might have been if he did receive and read it.

Schaff traces the progress of Luther in the three letters he wrote to the pope: “In his first letter to the pope, 1518, Luther had thrown himself at his feet as an obedient son of the vicar of Christ; in his second letter, 1519, he still had addressed him as a humble subject, yet refusing to recant his conscientious convictions; in his third and last letter he addressed him as an equal, speaking to him with great respect for his personal character even beyond his deserts, but denouncing in the severest terms the Roman See, and comparing him to a lamb among wolves, and to Daniel in the den of lions.” If the pope ever read it, “it must have filled him with mingled feelings of indignation and disgust.”

We may go even farther. Luther thinks of St. Bernard’s attitude toward Pope Eugene, and Bernard was Eugene’s superior in the Cistercian order and had been looked up to as “father.” Luther writes as a father confessor to a friend in trouble, and might have quoted Bernard’s words: “I grieve with you. I should say, I grieve with you if, indeed, you also grieve. Otherwise I should have rather said, I grieve for you; because that is not grieving with another when there is none who grieves. Therefore if you grieve, I grieve with you; if not, still I grieve, and then most of all, knowing that the member which is without feeling is the farther removed from health and that the sick man who does not feel his sickness is in the greater danger.” The pope was a humanist, not a spiritually minded priest; we may, therefore, believe that Charles Beard is not far wrong in his estimate of the possible effect of this letter upon him: “If Giovanni de Medici, the head of a house which had long come to consider itself princely, and the occupant of the Fisherman’s chair, when it claimed to be the highest of earthly thrones, read this bold apostrophe, addressed to him by a ‘peasant and a peasant’s son,’ he must have thought him mad with conceit and vanity. He was incapable of being touched by the moral nobleness of the appeal, and so audacious a contempt of merely social distinctions the world has rarely seen."

Mentioned in this snippet is Charles Beard's Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany. There we learn that Miltitz was attempting to have Exsurge Domine modified or abrogated. Beard states a "temperate statement" from Luther "could not make matters worse." Miltitz was also trying to get Luther's letter back-dated so it appeared to have been sent before Exsurge Domine was published in Saxony. Of this letter Beard states,

Luther's letter to the Pope, really written about the middle of October, but at Miltitz's request dated back to the 6th of September, in order that it might appear to anticipate the publication of the Bull in Saxony, is a very different document from those which had preceded it. It is respectful, but not servile: Luther's intense feeling of the difference of rank between himself and the Pope seems to have passed away, and he addresses him almost as an equal. He clears himself, so far as protestation of innocence can do it, of the charge of having attacked the Pope personally; but he more than makes up for this by the severest invectives against the corruptions of the Roman Curia and the vices of the sacred city. What end of conciliation could possibly be served by a passage like the following, which may be taken as a fair sample of the whole ? "Next, my Father Leo, beware how you listen to those sirens who make you no mere man, but a mixed god, so that you can command and exact whatever you will. It will not be so, nor will you prevail; you are a servant of servants, and, more than all men, in a most miserable and dangerous position. Let not them deceive you who pretend that you are Lord of the world; who permit no one, apart from your authority, to be a Christian; who babble that you can do what you will in heaven, hell, purgatory. These are your enemies, who seek your soul to destroy it, as saith Isaiah, 'My people, who call thee blessed, they themselves deceive thee.' They err who elevate you above Council and Universal Church; they err who attribute to you alone the right of interpreting Scripture. All these seek to set up in the Church their own impieties under your name; and alas! by their means Satan effected much in your predecessors. In a word, believe none who exalt you, but only those who humble you. For this is the judgment of God, 'He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and exalted them of low degree.' " If Giovanni de Medici, the head of a house which had long come to consider itself princely, and the occupant of the Fisherman's chair, when it claimed to be the highest of earthly thrones, read this bold apostrophe, addressed to him by "a peasant and a peasant's son," he must have thought him mad with conceit and vanity. He was incapable of being touched by the moral nobleness of the appeal, and so audacious a contempt of merely social distinctions the world has rarely seen.

So, what do we make of Martin Luther and his Naiveté? It appears from the background that Luther was not at all naive. I've documented before Luther's distrust of the papacy during this time period. While Luther may not have publicly attacked the Pope, he certainly didn't naively trust him.

I recently re-listened to the first White / Staples debate on Sola Scriptura: Is The Bible the Only Infallible Rule of Faith? This debate is from 1996. If you listen to this debate, you'll hear references to an earlier discussion between James and Tim on the Bible Answer Man show. I had never heard this before, so I tracked it down: The Roman Catholicism Debate on BAM (White vs Staples - I). This is a lively discussion as well. It's an inexpensive downloadable mp3.  Since it's an old recording, for best sound results, lower the bass frequencies and raise the highs.

I mention this old discussion because it serves as a reminder that Dr. White was interacting with Roman apologists long before many of us even cared. His argumentation back in 1996 (probably a lot of it compiled without the Internet or "e books" or gizmos) was excellent, both in this discussion, and in his debate with Tim.

Addendum #1
In the BAM discussion, you'll hear a basic outline of the White vs. Staples Purgatory debate, many years before the debate actually happened. This is the 2010 debate Catholic Answers has no interest making available.

Addendum #2
During this 1996 BAM show, Iron Sharpens Iron host Chris Arnzen called in to explain to Tim Staples how to beat the "old" James White in debate. Click to hear the answer.

For those of you who follow a liturgical calender, you're probably aware that May 9 is Ascension Day.  So, why not spoil such a blessed commemoration and post something on hyper-preterism?

This morning while surfing around the Internet I came upon something quite distressing: there actually is a hyper-preterist church within driving distance from my house. I don't know how large of a congregation it is, but they actually do have a nice (and historic) church building. My guess is the congregation is small. I know most everyone who first hears about the movement thinks that it's so wacky, no one should even bother taking it seriously. On the other hand, it would not surprise me if the movement gained momentum if a few charismatic leaders with excellent communication skills arise within the movement.  Time will tell.

In regard to the ascension of Christ, Acts 1:9-11 states,

9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're wondering how a hyper-preterist get's around this one.  Recall, for an advocate of hyper-preterism, Jesus came back in A.D. 70, and as far as I understand their theology, he came back in a spiritual sense in judgment against the nation of Israel. Acts 1:11 though seems to really say that the literal Jesus will literally return in the same way he ascended.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll link over to Keith Mathison's pdf article on this very issue. One striking feature of Mathison's article is he points out that in order to understand hyper-preterism as a whole on Acts 1:9-11, one must see that as a whole the movement is quite confusing in regard to interpreting Acts 1:9-11. Mathison did the time-consuming job of documenting quite a number of differing hyper-preterist interpretations of this passage. I came across yet another one today that appears to be arguing Acts 1:9-11 is in regard to Jesus coming back and rapturing the church before coming back in judgment in A.D. 70.  If you want to see how far some will go to avoid the obvious of Acts 1:9-11, take a look at Mathison's paper.

Here's a Luther quote from the Catholic Answers Forums:

Did early protestant reformers agree that the catholic church was true church of Christ? Quote showing Martin Luther originally believed the Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ:
"Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them."
Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522. [This sermon is taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]

This snippet quote appears to be taken from a web page like this. What I found ironic is that as of the writing on this post (5/3/13), not one of 26 people who commented  took the time to look the quote  up. This comment is as it close as it gets. It isn't as if the context of this quote is difficult to find either. It is not.

The quote is from Luther's sermon on John 15:26-16:4, a text which speaks about the oncoming persecution of those who believe in Christ. In II A 9-11, Luther explains that the early followers of Christ were to be rejected by those very people from whom they came from, the Jews. He states this is actually the  popular interpretation that "the papists" begin and end at in regard to this text. But Luther states,

12. Hitherto no one has understood these words, nor can any one among the papists interpret the expression, "They shall excommunicate you" etc. They can say nothing else of this passage than that it is now an old and, in fact, a dead thing, referring to the Jews, who were a wicked and hardened people, that would not endure Christ and his apostles. It is hard to believe that even now there can be such wicked people on earth among Christians or in the Church as those who would excommunicate their brethren. But it cannot be Jews nor Turks who are meant; they have nothing to do with the Church. Nor has it ever been known that among the papists any one of them was excommunicated or persecuted or killed for the sake of the Gospel or the knowledge of Christ. Then, of course, this sermon does not concern them, and gives them neither instruction nor comfort.

13. But we, thank God, have been compelled, by our experience as preachers of the Gospel, to learn something of Christ's meaning here and why he has spoken these things. We discover, in connection with the controversy concerning doctrine which we carry on with our adversary, that the papacy with its numerous adherents has been and still is composed of the tender, pious, holy people of whom Christ here speaks, who excommunicate his Christians for the Gospel's sake and think that thereby they are rendering service to God. They certainly did this when by force they suppressed the Gospel and compelled submission, the Church accepting and obeying their mandates, and when, if anyone dared a single opposing word, he was promptly burned at the stake.

14. To exterminate the accursed heretics and enemies of God was called doing a holy work for God. In our time, also, they have shown this spirit in many examples and still show it in their treatment of numerous pious people whom they foully put to death, solely on account of their confession of faith in Christ and God, and will not consent to spare their lives even were they willing to recant. Therefore this passage does not need many annotations other than that we learn from it the difference between the true and the false Church, and thereby receive strength and comfort in our hour of a similar persecution. In view of this, let us briefly examine the words of the Gospel.

In other words,Luther is preaching John 15:26-16:4 is describing the Roman church persecuting those who believe in the Gospel.

22. We have the comfort of this victory of Christ--that he maintains his Church against the wrath and power of the devil; but in the meantime we must endure such stabs and cruel wounds from the devil as are necessarily painful to our flesh and blood. The hardest part is that we must see and suffer all these things from those who call themselves the people of God and the Christian Church. We must learn to accept these things calmly, for neither Christ nor the saints have fared better.

23. It was also a bitter and hard thing for our first parent, Adam, to learn to understand the fulfillment in his own children of this same truth, "I will put enmity between thee" etc., when his first born and God-given son murdered his own brother because of his offering to God and his obedience to him. The patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and others who, for the time being, were the true Church, had to pass through the same experience when brothers who had learned from the same father one and the same faith, Word and worship of God, became enemies and one received persecution at the hands of the other. We ought not to be surprised, then, if a similar experience must be ours, not alone at the hands of the papists, from whom we have already received condemnation and whose disposition toward us is plainly apparent; but also at the hands of those who are still among us as evangelical Christians, and who yet are not upright.

In section C, Luther then goes on to explain why those committed to the papacy will become persecutors; why "such worthy people, the best, the wisest and most holy among God's children, who earnestly seek to serve and honor God, should so bitterly and mercilessly persecute Christ and his people." The basic reason is explained by Jesus: These things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father nor me. Luther states:

26. That they do not know this Christ is true without a doubt. Their own confession and deeds prove it. It is plainly evident in what high esteem they hold themselves as being the people of God, who possess the Law, and the promise, the priesthood and worship of God (even as our people possess the Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament and the name of Christ); yet they are blind and without the true knowledge of God and of Christ, and consequently have become hardened, opposing God and his Son with their acts of ban and murder, under the very appearance and with the boast of thereby serving God. But Christ strengthens and comforts his own people that they may not fear harsh judgment, nor be intimidated by jealous authority from preaching and confession, but may say to their adversaries as the apostles answered the chief-priests and the council at Jerusalem, in Acts 5, 29: "We must obey God rather than men."

27. In this connection Christ fixes the standard of judgment and points out the difference between the true and the false Church. The Church is not to be judged by name and external appearance; but insight must be had and the identifying mark be forthcoming, by which the holy Church and the true people and servants of God may be recognized. Reason and human wisdom cannot furnish the necessary qualifications for the true Church. The actual test is in ascertaining who have the real knowledge of Christ and who have it not. Judgment cannot be passed in this case according to mere external appearance and name, according to the office and authority and power of the Church; in all these externals the Jews excelled the apostles and the papacy excels us by far.

28. Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.

29. In view of these prerogatives, they make their perverse boast against us and censure and curse us as obstinate and recreant apostates and enemies of the Church. It is unpleasant to suffer such reproach, and for this reason the devil easily terrifies the hearts of some of the ignorant and overwhelms men with the thought: Alas! the Church has pronounced the ban and it really possesses the office; this is certainly a thing not to be made light of, for Christ says in Mt 18, 18: "What things soever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven." Therefore whom the Church excommunicates is undoubtedly also condemned by God. Most assuredly they do not excommunicate in the name of the devil, nor of the pope, but in the name of God the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, by the authority of Christ etc., embellishing the ceremony with appropriate and high-sounding and solemn words.

30. It is necessary to a thorough understanding of the matter that we understand what Christ here says concerning the two Churches: One is the Church which is not recognized by the world, but is robbed of its name and exiled; the other, the Church that has the name and honor but persecutes the small flock of believers. Thus we have the opposing situations: The Church which is denied the name is the true Church, whilst the other is not the reality, though it may occupy the seat of authority and power, and possess and perform all the offices conceded to be offices and marks of the holy Church and yet we are obliged to suffer its ban and judgment.

It would be possible to continue quoting Luther expounding his point, but I let the interested reader consult the context for himself. towards the end, Luther states:

39. From these two convictions--that they do not know him and that they persecute and slay his advocates--Christ now passes the judgment that the so-called Church is not the Church. He then concludes that with their false doctrines and persecutions they are both liars and murderers of God and of Christ and of all his saints.

40. From the analysis given, you may decide for yourself in which group you are to be found; for you must be on one side or the other, and it is useless to wait for human council in this matter. It has already been unalterably determined that the two divisions can never agree. The larger body, which has the recognized authority, will always persecute the minority, even to the extent of excommunication and murder, as practiced from the beginning. Those who know Christ--the true Christians--will accept Christ's classification and be numbered with the minority, who have the Word and the knowledge of Christ, and they will suffer persecution for the faith rather than, for the sake of the friendship and honor of this world, to belong to those who, condemned by Christ, are the bitterest foes of God and of the Church, and who cannot see the kingdom of God, nor be saved.

41. In this article of faith, distinction must be made between the true Church and the false; for it is the command of God and of Christ that one shall not be confused with the other. Therefore, we must separate ourselves from the papal Church, regardless of the fact that they trust in their Church authority and condemn us as apostates.

And finally:

43. We admit that the papists also exercise the appointed offices of the Church, baptize, administer the sacrament etc., when they observe these things as the institution of Christ, in the name of Christ and by virtue of his command (just as in the Church we must regard as right and efficacious the offices of the Church and baptism administered by heretics), yet if they attempt to pervert the right use of these offices by exercising them against us, we may, by virtue of the judgment of Christ, declare their action void and regard themselves as apostates of the Church of Christ.

Here's another one from the Catholic Answers Forums:

Quotes which show John Calvin stating the early Church (the Catholic Church) was once the true Church of Christ:"But let us forgive them this, and let them take for granted that primacy was divinely bestowed on the Romish see, and has been sanctioned by the uniform consent of the ancient church; still there is room for this primacy only on the supposition that Rome has both a true church and a true bishop" John Calvin - The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543)

Keep in mind with this statement from CAF, "the Catholic Church" means= Romanism. This snippet quote appears to be taken from a web page like this.

Calvin's statement is actually part of a complex argument. From this statement quoted at CAF, it appears that Calvin is granting the Roman church "primacy...sanctioned by the uniform consent of the ancient church," and that "Rome has both a true church and a true bishop." Well, if he did grant all this, this statement in context certainly doesn't prove it:

But, because they hold that the communion of the Church is confined to a kind of regimen which they have struck out for themselves, they think it sufficient to decide the victory in their favor, when they point to our alienation from the Romish See. But to this vaunted primacy of the Romish See it is not difficult to reply. It is a subject, however, on which I will not here enter, both because it would occupy too much time, and because it has been amply discussed by our writers. I will only beg your Imperial Majesty, and Most Illustrious Princes, to listen to Cyprian, when he points out a better method of ascertaining the true communion of the Church, than that of referring it, as our opponents do, to the Roman Pontiff alone. For, after placing the only source of ecclesiastical concord in the episcopal authority of Christ, which episcopal authority he affirms that each bishop, to the extent to which it has been communicated, holds entire, he thus proceeds: “There is one church, which, by the increase of its fruitfulness, spreads into a multitude, just as there are many rays of the sun, but only one light, many branches in a tree, but one trunk, upheld by its tenacious root; and when many streams flow from one fountain, though, from the copiousness of the supply, there seems a division into parts, still, in regard to the origin, unity is preserved. Separate a ray from the body of the sun, the unity of the light is not divided. Break a branch from a tree, that which is broken cannot germinate. Cut off a stream from the fountain, and it dries up. So, also, the Church of God, irradiated with light, sends its beams over the whole world. Still it is one light which is everywhere diffused. The unity of the body is not violated.” (Cyprian De Unitat. Ecclesiae.) Heresies and Schisms, therefore, arise when a return is not made to the origin of truth, when neither the head is regarded, nor the doctrine of the heavenly Master preserved. Let them then show us a hierarchy in which the bishops are distinguished, but not for refusing to be subject to Christ, in which they depend upon him as the only head, and act solely with reference to him, in which they cultivate brotherly fellowship with each other, bound together by no other tie than his truth; then, indeed, I will confess that there is no anathema too strong for those who do not regard them with reverence, and yield them the fullest obedience. But is there any thing like this in that false mask of hierarchy on which they plume themselves? The Roman Pontiff alone as Christ’s vicar is in the ascendant, and domineers without law and without measure,after the manner of a tyrant, nay, with more abandoned effrontery than any tyrant. The rest of the body is framed more according to his standard than that of Christ. The light of which Cyprian speaks is extinguished, the copious fountain cut off; in short, the only thing exhibited is the tallness of the tree, but a tree dissevered from its root.

I am aware that our adversaries have good reason for laboring so strenuously to maintain the primacy of the Romish See. They feel that on it both themselves and their all depend. But your part, Most Invincible Emperor, and Most Illustrious Princes, is to be on your guard in order that they may not with vain glosses deceive you, as they are wont to deceive the unwary. And, first, this vaunted supremacy, even themselves are forced to confess, was established by no divine authority, but by the mere will of man. At least, when we give proof of this fact, though they do not expressly assent, they seem as if ashamed to maintain the opposite. There was a time, indeed, when they audaciously perverted certain passages of Scripture to confirm this palpable falsehood, but as soon as we came to close quarters, it was found easy to pluck out of their hands the bits of lath, to which, when at a distance, they had given the appearance of swords. Abandoned, accordingly, by the Word of God, they flee for aid to antiquity. But here, also, without much ado, we dislodge them. For both the writings of holy Fathers, the acts of Councils, and all history, make it plain that this height of power, which the Roman Pontiff has now possessed for about four hundred years, was attained gradually, or rather was either craftily crept into, or violently seized. But let us forgive them this, and let them take for granted that primacy was divinely bestowed on the Romish See, and has been sanctioned by the uniform consent of the ancient Church; still there is room for this primacy only on the supposition that Rome has both a true church and a true bishop. For the honor of the seat cannot remain after the seat itself has ceased to exist. I ask, then, in what respect the Roman Pontiff performs the duty of a bishop, so as to oblige us to recognize him as a bishop? There is a celebrated saying of Augustine, “Bishopric is the name of an office, and not a mere title of honor.” And ancient Synods define the duties of a bishop to consist in feeding the people by the preaching the Word, in administering, the sacraments, in curbing clergy and people by holy discipline, and, in order not to be distracted from these duties, in withdrawing from all the ordinary cares of the present life. In all these duties, presbyters ought to be the bishop’s coadjutors. Which of them do the Pope and his Cardinals pretend to perform? Let them say, then, on what ground they claim to be regarded as legitimate pastors, while they do not, with their little finger, in appearance even, touch any part of the duty.

But let us grant all these things, viz., that he is a bishop who entirely neglects every part of his duty, and that a Church which is destitute, as well of the ministry of the Word as of the pure administration of the Sacraments; still, what answer is made when we add not only that these are wanting, but that every thing which exists is directly the reverse? For several centuries that See has been possessed by impious superstitions, open idolatry, perverse doctrines, while those great truths, in which the Christian religion chiefly consists, have been suppressed. By the prostitution of the Sacraments to filthy lucre, and other abominations, Christ has been held up to such extreme derision, that he has in a manner been crucified afresh. Can she be the mother of all churches, who not only does not retain, I do not say the face, but even a single lineament, of the true Church, and has snapt asunder all those bonds of holy communion by which believers should be linked together? The Roman Pontiff is now opposing himself to the reviving doctrines of the gospel, just as if his head were at stake. Does he not, by this very fact, demonstrate that there will be no safety for his See unless he can put to flight the kingdom of Christ? Your Imperial Majesty is aware how wide a field of discussion here opens upon me. But to conclude this point in a few words: I deny that See to be Apostolical, wherein nought is seen but a shocking apostacy — I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist — I deny him to be the successor of Peter, who is doing his utmost to demolish every edifice that Peter built — and I deny him to be the head of the Church, who by his tyranny lacerates and dismembers the Church, after dissevering her from Christ, her true and only Head. Let these denials be answered by those who are so bent on chaining the hierarchy of the Church to the Romish See, that they hesitate not to subordinate the sure and tried doctrines of the gospel to the authority of the Pope. Yea, I say, let them answer; only do you, Most Invincible Emperor, and Most Illustrious Princes, consider whether, in so calling upon them, the thing I ask is just or unjust.

I came across this link posted on the Catholic Answers Forums: The Hope of Eternal Life. The link is ecumenical in nature, an attempt to smooth over the edges between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism.  This is the excerpt that was posted on CAF:

181. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice "has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries" (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, "with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article..." (§12). Behind Luther's typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. "Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen], even if it were neither error nor idolatry" (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. "When they have given up their purgatorial 'Mass fairs' (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine's word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers' works or words" (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.

This excerpt is fascinating because it argues Luther believed:

-Purgatory isn't taught in Scripture, but yet may exist.
-Purgatory is only to be avoided because of its associations with "unacceptable practices."
-If these practices were removed, a proper discussion on purgatory could occur.

According to this article here is Luther's view  of purgatory:  "A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations." In other words, purgatory, for Luther, was an open question. Get rid of the abuses attached to it, and then it could be discussed.

In regard to the Smalcald Articles, LW states, "Under these circumstances the elector of Saxony instructed Luther in a letter of Dec. 11, 1536, to prepare a statement indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made for the sake of peace and the articles in which no concessions could be made."
Here are the two statements from the Smalcald Articles alluded to above. Read them for yourself and see if Luther is willing to make a concession on purgatory for the sake of peace:

Luther states in Article 12:

12 The first is purgatory. They were so occupied with requiem Masses, with vigils, with the weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of requiems, with the common week, with All Souls’ Day, and with soul-baths that the Mass was used almost exclusively for the dead although Christ instituted the sacrament for the living alone. Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls. Besides, nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us with reference to the dead. All this may consequently be discarded, apart entirely from the fact that it is error and idolatry.

Luther states in Article 13:

13 The papists here adduce passages from Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written about purgatory. They suppose that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end the authors wrote these passages. St. Augustine (tr-467) does not write that there is a purgatory, nor does he cite any passage of the Scriptures that would constrain him to adopt such an opinion. He leaves it undecided whether or not there is a purgatory and merely mentions that his mother asked that she be remembered at the altar or sacrament. Now, this is nothing but a human opinion of certain individuals and cannot establish an article of faith. That is the prerogative of God alone. 14 But our papists make use of such human opinions to make men believe their shameful, blasphemous, accursed traffic in Masses which are offered for souls in purgatory, etc. They can never demonstrate these things from Augustine. Only when they have abolished their traffic in purgatorial Masses (which St. Augustine never dreamed of) shall we be ready to discuss with them whether statements of St. Augustine are to be accepted when they are without the support of the Scriptures and whether the dead are to be commemorated in the sacrament. 15 It will not do to make articles of faith out of the holy Fathers’ words or works. Otherwise what they ate, how they dressed, and what kind of houses they lived in would have to become articles of faith — as has happened in the case of relics. This means that the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel. 

The reading given to these statements by The Hope of Eternal Life downplays the first explicit rejection of purgatory, and sees the real Luther in his willingness to discuss what Augustine meant when "purgatorial masses" are abolished. The problem as I see it, is this reading of the Smalcald Articles isolates these statements from Luther's total written corpus, particularly any writings after the Smalcald Articles.

For instance, in his later sermons on Genesis, Luther states something with similar characteristics to the Smalcald articles. Note particularly the reference to Augustine:

The pope invents four separate places for the dead.The first is the hell of the damned. The second is purgatory, and Thomas Aquinas says that hell is the middle point, so to speak. It is surrounded by purgatory. But around this there is a third circle. It is for unbaptized infants. The fourth circle is the limbo of the fathers. Here the godly dwelt before the resurrection of Christ. These are nothing but dreams and human inventions. Peter and Paul state clearly that the demons move about in the air. With regard to what Paul says see Eph. 2:2, and in 2 Peter 2:4 it is stated that “God did not spare the angels when they sinned but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment.” With these statements I rest content, and I do not inquire into things higher than those handed down by the apostles. Of purgatory there is no mention in Holy Scripture; it is a lie of the devil, in order that the papists may have some market days and snares for catching money. The sophists agree with the pope because of Thomas. But Thomas does not concern us. Augustine makes mention of purgatory somewhere, but he speaks very obscurely. Therefore I do not believe that those four separate classes really exist; for Scripture does not speak this way but testifies that the dead saints are gathered to their people, or to those who believe in the Messiah and awaited His coming, just as Adam, together with all his descendants, died in faith in Christ. But how these saints are kept in definite places, we do not know. [Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 8: Luther's works, vol. 8 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 45-50 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (8:316). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Here again Luther explicitly denies purgatory, then mentions the obscurity of Augustine. He then goes on to deny that "four separate classes really exist." In the same volume, Luther refers to "Masses, purgatory, indulgences, and prayers to the dead" as false forms of worship (LW 8:230). Elsewhere in Luther's lectures on Genesis he states,

[P]urgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

And here:

The third sphere is that of purgatory, into which neither the damned nor infants enter; it is for those who, while they believe, yet have not rendered satisfaction for their sins. The souls of these are ransomed by means of indulgences. From this source comes the hogwash of indulgences and the entire papistic religion.The fourth place is the limbo of the fathers. They say that Christ descended to this place, broke it open, and set free—not from hell but from the limbo—the fathers who were troubled by the longing and waiting for Christ but were not enduring punishment or torments. With these silly ideas the papists have filled the church and the world. We have overturned all this completely and maintain that unbaptized infants do not have such a sphere. But in what state they are or what becomes of them we commend to the goodness of God. They do not have faith or Baptism; but whether God receives them in an extraordinary manner and gives them faith is not stated in the Word, and we dare not set down anything as certain. To be deprived of the vision of God is hell itself. They admit that they have will and intellect, especially concerning the vision of God and life; but these are falsehoods. And purgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House]. 

Comments from Luther similar to these could be greatly multiplied, which is why some Lutherans see any affirmation that Luther held purgatory was an "open question" as a lie of the Devil.

Here's an old Q and A tidbit I found from Robert Sungenis, answering questions:

Question: I am particularly disturbed that at least from Innocent IV ( I am relying on memory here) onwards, and his bull "Ad Extirpande" in I believe 1234 A.D., torture was indicated to be permissible to use against heretics by the papal inquisition. In addition, many popes over the next three centuries then *mandated* that magistrates had to kill twice-convicted heretics by burning them at the stake, on pain of themselves being excommunicated and burnt themselves. This strikes me as particularly demonic and not particularly an example of the way of Christ who came to save sinners not destroy them, and I find it especially alarming coming as a series of commands in papal bulls. Leo X in his bull "Exsurge, Domine" against Luther (1520) in point 33 condemns Luther for teaching that "burning heretics is against the Holy Spirit". Since Leo X is officially condemning Luther's *teaching* in this bull, it means Leo is *teaching* that burning of heretics is okay.

R. Sungenis: How about stoning of criminals and heretics in the Old Testament, under command of God? How about slaying women and children with the sword when conquering non-Jewish cities, under command of God?

Question: It is not until Pius XII, and later Vatican II, that we find the use of torture and such things as burning of heretics condemned. I believe Pope Nicholas may have condemned the use of torture against heretics c. 866 A.D., but the Medieval popes ignored this and ordered the opposite. I guess my main problem, Dr. Sungenis, is this: if the main purpose of the Pope is to be the rock-foundation of the Church, and to protect us against errors in faith and morals, then how could we have the agonizingly wrong-headed phenomenon of popes *commanding* that heretics be burned alive? That is not mere papal sin, it is rather commanding others to sin on pain of excommunication, and actually *teaching* that burning heretics is okay--and that must surely be a major error in teaching. (I can't think of anything more soul destroying than lighting on fire the flesh of another person and making them burn alive. I'd love your thoughts on these things.

And believe me, I write as a Lutheran who is, nevertheless, very well disposed towards the Catholic Church. I say the rosary, am most interested in Marian apparitions, and firmly believe in the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Frankly, if the Bishop of Rome truly is the successor of Peter, I would want to honor him as such.

R. Sungenis: And look at the state of the Church when popes go to the opposite extreme of allowing evil to exist without punishing it. I personally would have no problem with reinstituting stoning for formal heretics and those convicted of capital crimes. If you don't like burning at the stake because it seems cruel, I'm sure there are other capital punishments that could be implemented to do the same thing that would be more acceptable to you and I in our culture.

The following is from the Beggars All archive:

  Here are some  tidbits from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the job the infallible church has done in 2000 years of infallible biblical interpretation:

“The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle.”source

"...the Holy Fathers, we say, are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith...This unanimity is not destroyed by the silence of some of the foremost Fathers, and is sufficiently guaranteed by the consentient voice of the principal patristic writers living at any critical period, or by the agreement of commentators living at various times; but the unanimity is destroyed if some of the Fathers openly deny the correctness of the interpretation given by the others, or if they explain the passage in such a way as to render impossible the explanation given by others."

So there you have it: in 2000 years the infallible church took care of a few scripture passages. Great job.

The infallible church also looks to the unanimous consent of the fathers for some help in figuring out the Bible. Let’s try this for some ‘certainty’. We’ll start with the Fathers’ comments on Matthew 16:18- “The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18.” After reading this link, the line above from the Catholic Encyclopedia really has an interesting ring to it: "...the unanimity is destroyed if some of the Fathers openly deny the correctness of the interpretation given by the others, or if they explain the passage in such a way as to render impossible the explanation given by others."

Addendum:

“Very few texts have in fact been authoritatively determined and ‘there consequently remain many important matters in the explanation of which sagacity and ingenuity of Catholic interpreters can and should be freely exercised…” [Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.60, first column (as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 223].

“The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the Church is small…It has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined”[Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.59, second column ((as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 224]. King mentions this commentary lists Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53, and 2 Maccabees 12:43 as infallibly defined, but gives no evidence to prove the assertion.

“The Council of Trent teaches that Rom., v, 12, refers to original sin (Sess. V, cc. ii, iv), that John, iii, 5, teaches the absolute necessity of the baptism of water (Sess. V, c. iv; Sess. VII, De bapt., c. ii), that Matt., xxvi, 26 sq. is to be understood in the proper sense (Sess. XIII, cap. i); the Vatican Council gives a direct definition of the texts, Matt., xvi, 16 sqq. and John, xxi, 15 sqq. Many more Scripture texts are indirectly defined by the definition of certain doctrines and the condemnation of certain errors” [Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Entry: Biblical Exegesis].

"...the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack" [PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On The Study Of Holy Scripture (Encylical Of Pope Leo XIII, November 18, 1893].

"But this also has a bearing on our firmly holding the conviction that there were really six days on which the Lord created everything, in contrast to the opinion of Augustine and Hilary, who believed that everything was created in a single moment. They, therefore, abandon the historical account, pursuing allegories and fabricating I don’t know what speculations. However, I am not saying this to vilify the holy fathers, whose works should be held in high regard, but to establish the truth and to comfort us. They were great men, but nevertheless they were human beings who erred and who were subject to error. So we do not exalt them as do the monks, who worship all their opinions as if they were infallible. To me the great comfort seems to lie rather in this, that they are found to have erred and occasionally to have sinned. For this is my thought: If God forgave them their errors and sins, why should I despair of His pardon? The opposite brings on despair—if you should believe that they did not have the same shortcomings that you have. Moreover, it is certain that between the call of the apostles and that of the fathers there is a great difference. Why, then, should we regard the writings of the fathers as equal to those of the apostles?" [Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 1: Luther's works, vol. 1 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (1:121). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

"Hilary and Augustine, almost the two greatest lights of the church, hold that the world was created instantaneously and all at the same time, not successively in the course of six days [Hilary, On the Trinity, XII, ch. 40, Patrologia, Series Latina, X, 458, 459; Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri XII, IV, ch. 33; Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, XXVIII, Sec. III, Part I, p. 133].  Moreover, Augustine resorts to extraordinary trifling in his treatment of the six days, which he makes out to be mystical days of knowledge among the angels, not natural ones. Hence debates are customary in schools and churches concerning evening and morning knowledge, subjects brought up by Augustine and scrupulously propounded by Lyra. Whoever wants to gain a knowledge of them, let him get it from Lyra" [Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 1: Luther's works, vol. 1 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (1:4). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Addendum: Catholic Answers
"The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case [a consensus on literal days of creation]. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period...Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology." [source]

This past week I've gotten caught up in a few Internet discussions, which usually means I'm not using my time as wisely as I possibly could.

The first is the typical "Roman Catholic hates Luther, cites Grisar and Denifle" but when scrutinized, has no idea what they're talking about. This was a Carm discussion (you may have to register to see it) which began here. I jumped in here. The discussion picks up again here, and my response is here, here and here. This last page is primarily our discussion. This is the usual tedium.

The second actually occurred on a blog I don't usually visit called, "Steadfast Lutherans." There was a recent post entitled, Sanctification: By Grace Alone. In the comment section, a man named Lloyd Cadle began almost immediately leaving pro-Roman Catholic comments, all the while not affirming his church affiliation. Mr. Cadle appeared to have an agenda that anyone reading the early church documents would become Roman Catholic or Orthodox. That is, the ECF's by an overwhelming consensus taught the same things Roman and Orthodox churches believe today. I challenged Mr, Cadle to apply his same standard to the modern Roman church. He appeared to be a zealous recent convert, because he avoided this question as much as possible, nor did he appear to have come across Newman's development hypothesis. There were two pages of comments (page 1) (page 2), until Lloyd last night said he had enough.

Update: I received an "infraction" from a Catholic Answers moderator:

"After reviewing your post, and your explaination for it, I have reached the conclusion that, although this post does not reach the level of contempt for Catholicism, it does show a general disrespect. Your explaination does not appear to be in accord with what you posted. This is also illustrated in your screen shots of the deleted posts on your blog. I would highly suggest you change your tone to be in accordance with CAF rules in the future."

*************************

...Well no, I didn't call the Steve Gregg Show, but a Catholic Answers participant did. Based on the discussion that ensued, I thought this call to Mr. Gregg would be interesting to hear, so I tracked it down, and posted it for the Catholic Answers folks. Here's the clip. After posting it, I took part in a brief discussion, only to have my posts deleted (along with the link to the mp3 clip). Here's what went down:

Yesterday, 6:31 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 710 Religion: Reformed

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by Adamski  It was a day or 2 before I pistes on catholic answers Ok: Here's an mp3 clip of your call. Click to listen, or right-click to save. If this was your call, it seemed to me that Gregg was fair with you, despite cutting you off from time to time. In fact, you leave his broadcast on quite cordial terms. JS

Today, 1:27 am

Adamski  Junior Member Join Date: September 10, 2011 Location: Seattle Posts: 360 Religion: Catholic (revert)

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  Ok: Here's an mp3 clip of your call. Click to listen, or right-click to save. If this was your call, it seemed to me that Gregg was fair with you, despite cutting you off from time to time. In fact, you leave his broadcast on quite cordial terms. JS Yes I think he was fair with me. I just think its silly to say his version of Christianity is right because he can interpate the bible better. That's rediculous Luther and Calvin both great Protestant scholars claimed they where both right because the could interpate the bible better and they argued who is right. I used to go to bible study fellowship when I was a Protestant and all they did was argue

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 710 Religion: Reformed

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by Adamski  Yes I think he was fair with me. I just think its silly to say his version of Christianity is right because he can interpate the bible better. That's rediculous Luther and Calvin both great Protestant scholars claimed they where both right because the could interpate the bible better and they argued who is right. I used to go to bible study fellowship when I was a Protestant and all they did was argue I don't recall Calvin and Luther ever arguing about anything with each other. Keep in mind, during the 16th century, everyone argued with everyone, including those attached to the Roman church. One need only search out the squabbles between the different orders of monks. Edited to add: Steve Gregg makes some good points to you, while other points were not so good. For instance, the claim that Tim Staples did not "know" his Bible previous to becoming Roman Catholic is simply untrue. As much as I may disagree with Mr. Staples, it certainly is the case he has quite a lot of Scripture memorized, and had this before joining Rome. JS

Today, 10:55 am

JustaServant  Regular Member Join Date: April 27, 2007 Location: West Virginia Posts: 5,906 Religion: Catholic (revert)

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  I don't recall Calvin and Luther ever arguing about anything with each other. Keep in mind, during the 16th century, everyone argued with everyone, including those attached to the Roman church. One need only search out the squabbles between the different orders of monks. Edited to add: Steve Gregg makes some good points to you, while other points were not so good. For instance, the claim that Tim Staples did not "know" his Bible previous to becoming Roman Catholic is simply untrue. As much as I may disagree with Mr. Staples, it certainly is the case he has quite a lot of Scripture memorized, and had this before joining Rome. JS The terms "Roman church" and "joining Rome" are highly offensive. What Staples joined was the Catholic Church.

Today, 11:07 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 710 Religion: Reformed

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by JustaServant  The terms "Roman church" and "joining Rome" are highly offensive. What Staples joined was the Catholic Church. "Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite." http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...holic-religion

Today, 11:11 am

JustaServant  Regular Member Join Date: April 27, 2007 Location: West Virginia Posts: 5,906 Religion: Catholic (revert)

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  "Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite." http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...holic-religion Nice dodge.  You didn't say "Roman Rite". You said "Roman church" and "joining Rome". You're not talking to a cradle Catholic whose never darkened the door of a Protestant church. I am very much aware of the code words you use and why you use them

Today, 11:12 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 710 Religion: Reformed

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show By the way, you're welcome, since no one said thanks to me for taking the time to search for the show, find the section in which the call took place, edit the clip out, post it on my server, and then make a downloadable link for all of you to have. Then you're welcome for me defending Mr. Staples against Steve Gregg assertion. But of course, the comment I got was how I made a "highly offensive" comment. Go figure. JS Edited to add: "Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite."

Today, 11:15 am

JustaServant  Regular Member Join Date: April 27, 2007 Location: West Virginia Posts: 5,906 Religion: Catholic (revert)

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  By the way, you're welcome, since no one said thanks to me for taking the time to search for the show, find the section in which the call took place, edit the clip out, post it on my server, and then make a downloadable link for all of you to have. Then you're welcome for me defending Mr. Staples against Steve Gregg assertion. But of course, the comment I got was how I made a "highly offensive" comment. Go figure. JS The matryr routine doesn't go very far with me dude.  Maybe that's the result of having eastern European relatives. All one has to do is read your blog to see your true feelings and motivations for coming here. You're not fooling anyone

Today, 11:17 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 710 Religion: Reformed

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by JustaServant  The matryr routine doesn't go very far with me dude.  Maybe that's the result of having eastern European relatives. All one has to do is read your blog to see your true feelings and motivations for coming here. You're not fooling anyone. You are now ignore. So post whatever you want "dude", I'm going to ignore you.

Those of you stopping by here regularly realize I enjoy trying to document obscure Luther quotes as I come across them. The ones I come across are typically being used for polemical purposes. I do this first as an interest and hobby. It certainly is fascinating to see the history around a particular quote. Second, its an historical apologetic endeavor. If I can point people to a context, they can read it for themselves and make up their own minds as to what any particular quote means in the scheme of church history.

Even I have to search my blog for particular quotes. Recently I came across a Luther quote that sounded familiar, but yet did not sound familiar. I searched my own blog and discovered I did three specific entries on one particular quote back in 2008 very similar to what I was looking for:

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part One)

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Two)

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Three)

I came across another version of this quote being used on the CARM boards which was very similar:

After Hieronymus Emser advised Luther to be judicious in his challenge to the Church, that is not to go at it too strong. The advise evoked a strange and vicious response from Luther, “The devil take it! The affair was not begun on God’s account; neither shall it end on God’s account!” (Robert Herndon Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther (1957), pp. 350-351, c. 403) Then we can just read his intent and mutinous frame of mind one of his flyers, "on the Papacy at Rome, June 25, 1520: 

"Now farewell, you unhappy, lost, and blasphemous Rome; the wrath of God has come upon you at last, as you have merited, for in spite of all prayer that have been said for you , you have become worse each day. We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed. . .If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, and heretics with fire, why should we not all the more assail with arms these master of perdition, these cardinals, these Popes, the whole dregs of the Roman Sodom. . ." 

What do we make of this, are the princes of peace are to be put to the attacked, put to the sword, and burned at the stake? As I said before, Christ freely spilt his own blood for His Church; Luther spilt the blood of Europe to ransack Christ's Church.

Documentation
The quote is said to be from a "flyer" of Luther's entitled "On the Papacy at Rome, June 25, 1520." I've already documented this is a bogus reference. "On the Papacy at Rome" is probably a reference to the title of a book by the Dominican Sylvester Prierias in which Luther responded to. Unfortunately, Roman Catholic apologetics has been so sloppy with this quote, they often mis-document it. The exact title from which the quote comes from is Epitoma Responsionis ad Marinum Lutherum, and is found in WA, vol. 6, beginning on page 325 and ending on page 348. Luther's Works state:

Luther wrote these words in 1520 in the margin of a work written against him by Sylvester Prierias (ca. 1456–1523), a Dominican monk and official theological adviser to Pope Leo X. Luther did not formally reply to Prierias, but only reprinted the treatise, adding his own comments in the margin. Luther’s version was entitled Responsio ad Martinum Luther (per Fratrem Silvestrum de Prierto). Cf. WA 6, 329.[Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41 : Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (41). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

The first part of the quote is found on page 329 near the beginning of the treatise. The second part of the quote appears on page 347 as part of Luther's postscript (Ad Lectorem). The writing is scheduled to be translated for a forthcoming edition of Luther's Works [Early Works 1509-ca. 1521 (2 volumes)].

It's hard to determine who stuck these two quotes together, as both have been floating around the Internet separately. Sometimes the quotes are documented as -"Martin Luther, 'On the Papacy at Rome' June 25, 1520 and 'To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.'" This leads me to believe someone compiled the quote from Warren H. Carroll's The Cleaving of Christendom, a History of Christendom Vol. 4, page 1, where Carroll cites both quotes.

Context
I refer anyone interested in the second half of the quote to one of my earlier entries. In regard to the first half, a source hostile to Luther provided an interesting overview of the context, Herbert Rix, Martin Luther: The Man and the Image, beginning on page 84, and citing both quotes.It should be obvious that Luther presented a highly polemical and rhetorical treatise. Rix mentions that Luther was predicting "he will go into schism if his conditions are not met and- by anticipation- bids farewell in a grand rhetorical flourish laced with scriptural illusions" (p.86), and then Rix cites the first quote.

Luther's Works likewise cites the first quote and states,

More and more he was convinced that the papacy could not be regarded as a neutral institution, but that it was Antichrist, a demonic institution striking at the Godgiven ordinances of the spiritual and temporal power. Nonetheless, Luther admitted that there had been true Christians in the Roman church in every generation: if the pope would and could go back to being the bishop of the church in Rome, he might still have his place within the Christian church. [Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41 : Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (41). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].