Socrates: the great conversationalist, intellectual gadfly, street-philosopher, and the pagan I admire the most

Open Discussion

C'mon folks! Gettin' kinda slow around here. Remember, I don't always reply in this forum like I do in the Q & A ones, but someone will, if a question is thrown out for discussion. What's on your mind?

Ronaldus Magnus. May his soul rest in peace. And let's help George W. Bush to "win one for the Gipper" this year.

John Wesley's death-mask (this amounts to a "photograph"). Anyone with a great nose like that can't be half-bad! I am of Methodist lineage on both sides and one of my uncles (d. 1964) was an Anglican priest.

A Fond Farewell to President Ronald Reagan

See P. Andrew Sandlin's excellent article on WorldNetDaily.

John Wesley: a "Catholic Methodist"?

Since discovering very "Catholic" things about various Protestants seems to be quite the thing these days, I was fascinated by this information I picked up today on Pontificator's blog, from Alastair Roberts, frequent visitor to this blog. I love Wesley! But now I think he is even cooler than I did before:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I came across this interesting letter a few months back. It is addressed to Wesley’s wayward brother-in-law, Westley Hall.

December 30, 1745.

DEAR BROTHER,—Now you act the part of a friend. It has long been our desire, that, you would speak freely. And we will do the same. What we know not yet, may God reveal to us!

You think, First, that, we undertake to defend some things, which are not defensible by the Word of God. You instance three: on each of which we will explain ourselves as clearly as we can.

1. ‘That, the validity of our ministry depends on a succession supposed to be from the Apostles, and a commission derived from the Pope of Rome, and his successors or dependents.’

We believe, it would not be right for us to administer, either Baptism or the Lord’s Supper, unless we had a commission so to do from those Bishops, whom we apprehend to be in a succession from the Apostles. And, yet, we allow, these Bishops are the successors of those, who are dependent on the Bishop of Rome. But, we would be glad to know, on what reasons you believe this to be inconsistent with the Word of God.

2. ‘That, there is an outward Priesthood, and consequently an outward Sacrifice, ordained and offered by the Bishop of Rome, and his successors or dependents, in the Church of England, as vicars and vicegerents of Christ.’

We believe there is and always was, in every Christian Church (whether dependent on the Bishop of Rome or not) an outward Priesthood ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward Sacrifice offered therein, by men authorized to act, as Ambassadors of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God. On what grounds do you believe, that, Christ has abolished that Priesthood or Sacrifice?

3. ‘That, this Papal Hierarchy and Prelacy, which still continues in the Church of England, is of Apostolical Institution, and authorized thereby; though not by the written Word.’

We believe, that, the threefold order of ministers, (which you seem to mean by Papal Hierarchy and Prelacy,) is not only authorized by its Apostolical Institution, but also by the written Word. Yet, we are willing to hear and weigh whatever reasons induce you to believe to the contrary.

But don't break out the champagne yet. Alas, there is some bad news, too. Dr. William Tighe added this sobering bit of information:

Well, yes, but when did John Wesley write this? In later life, he abandoned his earlier belief in the apostolic succession of bishops, and came to believe that presbyters and bishops were the same office; hence his consecration of Asbury & Coke as “superintendents” for American Methodists in (when? 1782?); subsequently they termed themselves “bishops.” Charles Wesley, who had not, like John, abandoned his earlier beliefs about Catholic Church Order, reproached John bitterly for these “consecrations.” Wesley, like Luther, changed some of his ideas as time went on – and for both of them the changes were away from historical Catholicism, not towards it.

It's a bummer, but this is what Protestantism tends to do, doesn't it? Move away from historic Catholic Christianity . . .

Alastair replied:

Yes, I was aware of that. However, this letter from Wesley does come 7 and a half years after his evangelical conversion. Wesley certainly did not see his evangelical convictions to be incompatible with his high ecclesiology for many years.

And this is an excellent consideration, assuming that Wesley did adopt a "lower" ecclesiology later in life. He managed to believe this "Catholic" stuff for seven years after adopting an evangelical stance and undergoing a profound personal experience of the Holy Spirit, and saw no radical inconsistency in that.

There are all sorts of examples of this, where the beliefs of prominent Protestant figures don't fit into the modern ("post-modern"?) evangelical mold: Luther's belief in the Immaculate Conception and baptismal regeneration, Bullinger's seeming acceptance of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, Wesley's quite Catholic notions of sanctification and rejection of sola fide, Keble, Pusey, Newman and the Tractarians, C.S. Lewis' casual acceptance of purgatory and prayers for the dead, widespread Protestant belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary and the wrongness of contraception until very recent times (and a growing movement going back to that stance today), etc. G.K. Chesterton made one of his perceptive analogies between Protestant "borrowing" or continuing lots of different Catholic beliefs and practices, to Robinson Crusoe going out to the wrecked ship again and again to retrieve more things.

I think Protestants ought to ask themselves why that is. Is it not rather obvious that Rome remains, and indeed always has been the standard for the parameters, nature, and shape of historic Christianity? Time and again, Protestant movements discover (or I should say "rediscover") some "new" truth, only to realize that we Catholics had held it all along, from the beginning. It's shipwrecked Crusoe going back to the "ship" of historic Catholicism, which is still sitting out there. Once this happens over and over, I think some folks (like myself in 1990) will start thinking of converting to this remarkable Church which seems to somehow (despite all its outward warts and flaws and laxity and/or ignorance of many of its members) "get it right" over and over. Ronald Knox made the journey across the Tiber. He wrote in his recounting of that odyssey:

I read . . . Milman's (soundly Protestant) History of Latin Christianity . . . he comments upon the extraordinary precision with which, time after time, the Bishops of Rome managed to foresee which side the Church would eventually take in a controversy, and "plumped" for it beforehand . . . Each time Rome . . . thinks today what the world will think tomorrow . . . the Catholic party is the party in which the Bishop of Rome was, and nothing else . . . The Papacy seemed to be the thing which medieval Christendom was certain about . . . I had taken no new intellectual step: I saw the same set of facts, and my intellect made an entirely different report of them . . .

I had been . . . fully prepared to find, that the immediate result of submission to Rome would be the sense of having one's liberty cramped and restricted in a number of ways . . . My experience has been exactly the opposite. I have been overwhelmed with the feeling of liberty . . . You can carry a weight so long that you cease to feel it; instead, you feel an outburst of positive relief when it is withdrawn. The suppressed uncertainty of mind was like a dull toothache that had been part of my daily experience . . . It was not till I became a Catholic that I became conscious of my former homelessness . . . I now found ease and naturalness, and stretched myself like a man who has been sitting in a cramped position . . . Nor do I feel cabined and cramped because intellectual speculation is now guided and limited for me by actual authority, as it had been . . . . by my own desire for orthodoxy.

(A Spiritual Aeneid, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1950 ed., 192-196, 218-220, 222)

2004 NBA Finals: Game One: Pistons Whip Lakers 87-75

Detroit: 87, LA: 75. YES!!!!

We had to listen to the (to Detroit ears like mine) smug, confident commentary before the game that "no one" has picked Detroit to win this series, and "many" expected an LA sweep. The Lakers (so the announcers repeat so often) have four future Hall of Famers, while the Pistons have no real superstars (a two-time defensive player of the year and an All-Star [Ben Wallace] is not that?). Blah blah blah. Well, they don't seem to understand that a good defense usually will overcome a good offense, in almost all sports (a point I made in my last basketball post). This was my pre-series analysis: the Lakers ain't the Lakers we all know and love when they have to face the best defensive team in the league. This is bound to make a difference, and it did.

I predicted that Shaq would still get his points (no one in the league can really stop him) but that we could win anyway. As it was, Kobe got his share, too, but our defense shut down the rest of the team (which was shooting 28% near the end of the game, so we were told). So Shaq and Kobe get their points, and (surprise!) Rip Hamilton (who has scored over 20 in every or almost every playoff game this year) got only 10. We were in their court, and we won by 12. The Lakers had not lost a game in the playoffs at home this year.

I thought we could split the games in LA. I didn't think we would win so handily without Hamilton getting 20 and Kobe having his usual game (and it could have been more of a blowout if we hadn't missed so many easy shots and made a lot of turnovers). So it is even better than I thought . . . There might indeed be a sweep in this series. The only thing the pundits got wrong is who would be the team to do the sweepin', if it happens. I predict Pistons in 7, but it might very well be six. The Lakers will probably win Game 2. They will win one of three in Detroit. And then we will win one of the last two in LA. We'll either win Game 6 out there or Game 7. In any event, it will be a great series now; that's for sure. If we do lose, it already looks like we'll at least do a heckuva lot better than the other anemic Eastern teams since Jordan's invincible Bulls (New Jersey and Philadelphia and Indiana) have done in the Finals.

[Martin Luther as a Monk, 1520; engraving by Lucas Cranach the Elder] Was Luther a Catholic Reformer or a Protestant Revolutionary?

I Like and Appreciate "Reformed Catholicism" a Lot, BUT . . .

. . . my friend, "Pontificator" (a traditionalist Anglican [Fr. Al Kimel: who later became a Catholic] ) has made, I think, some important criticisms of the movement, with which I largely agree. They deserve careful consideration from those in the self-titled "Reformed Catholicism" movement. This present paper of mine -- I hasten to add -- does not at all undo or clash with the expressly ecumenical effort of my recent post responding to (indeed, mostly loudly applauding) Joel Garver. He was dealing mostly with soteriology. In that area, I think there is remarkable existing agreement, and great potential for more as discussions continue. But -- sadly --, other issues do not present such a bright and rosey prospect for actual agreement.

I am both ecumenical and an apologist for Catholicism (a religious point of view that we don't feel needs any qualifier: people know what you are talking about when you say simply "Catholic"). That makes me distinct from "Reformed Catholicism" or "Anglo-Catholicism" or any other "x-Catholicism" that exists (either with a big "C" or a little "c"). But I am happy to find whatever common ground I can with all these brothers and sisters in Christ. People seem to be enamored with this word "Catholic" (and well they should be, because it implies a oneness and universality of the Church. This is the biblical and historic Christian concept).

The two endeavors do not contradict at all (as I have been arguing for 13 years now). They are not mutually exclusive (much as many people -- caught up in an "either/or" mentality and modality -- would like to believe). One can adhere to one set of beliefs and defend them against all comers, and also simultaneously seek unity with other Christians of different stripe, insofar as possible without denying one's own theological and doctrinal identity and distinctives. Apologetics is good, and unity and appreciation with other Christian traditions is good; I refuse to dichotomize the two).

With that disclaimer out of the way, I shall now post Pontificator's paper on his blog: “Reformed” + “Catholicism”–Water and Oil? in its entirety, with my responses in blue:

* * * * *

It’s been a pleasure discovering various sites on the internet devoted to the advancement of catholicity among the Protestant churches.

Indeed; I am quite pleased about this development also.

I’m not just talking about Anglo-Catholic groups within Anglicanism, but catholic groups among real Protestants.

So Anglicans are "unreal" Protestants? Just teasing . . .

Pontifications readers are probably already quite familiar with the splendid work of Thomas Oden. Oden is an evangelical Methodist who is seeking to reground Protestantism within the consensual tradition of the Church. Given the Anglican sacramentalism of John Wesley, and given Methodism’s distance from the 16th century Reformation, I have not found it surprising to find Oden and other Methodists (Geoffrey Wainwright immediately comes to mind) recalling the Church to its patristic roots.

One would hope they would be consistent with the roots of their own heritage, beginning with John Wesley (one of the Protestants in history I admire the most, particularly for his extraordinary evangelistic zeal), so this shouldn't be surprising at all (at least among those more historically-minded and -conscious within Methodism, which tends to be the scholars). But Protestant denominations have a bad habit of developing in directions quite foreign to the conceptions and goals of the founders of said groups.

But I admit I have found it surprising to find a Reformed Catholicism movement within the churches of Geneva. Reformed Catholicism? Is it an oxymoron? The Reformed-catholics obviously do not think so.

One could quibble with the category distinctions in play here, but beyond that, I think it is commendable to build bridges between these two camps, since historically there has existed such extreme antipathy between them.

It’s clear, however, that what these catholic reformers mean by catholicism is very, very different from what Orthodox and Catholic Christians–and even Anglo-Catholics–mean by that word.

Well, I agree. The goals may be very laudable, but when one gets down to closely analyzing terms and definitions, then one runs into (in my opinion) several thorny issues which can hardly be resolved by simply using words which "the other guy" tends to use more than our own tradition.

The contributors of Reformed Catholicism are emphatic in their insistence that Reformed Christianity is catholic, not sectarian; but I wonder what historical ecclesial reality they are speaking about. It’s not a matter of counting up the number of times the word catholic is used in the Reformed catechisms and confessions. It’s a question of the compatibility of Reformed teaching with the historic beliefs and practices of catholic Christianity.

Exactly. Well stated. This has long been a criticism of mine against certain sectors of this movement. It seems to me to make little sense ultimately unless there is some concrete, institutional, historically-continuous body or communion where it is embodied and instantiated. This is where the Catholic or Orthodox views are, I think (agree or disagree), far more internally coherent. And this criticism would apply to Anglicanism as well (as Pontificator is painfully aware, as a traditionalist in a rapidly liberalizing denomination, which shows itself presently excited about compromising with the blatantly non-Christian cultural zeitgeist).

It’s a question of what kind of churches actually emerged from the theologicical and ecclesiological teachings of Calvin & Company.

Bingo! Sorry for my Catholic bias in terminology there . . .

Isn’t “Reformed Catholicism” talking about an idealized church that has never existed?

Quite arguably, yes. I would like to hear their responses to this criticism, which has very much been my own, when the (wishful) attempt is made to find a supposedly close affinity between historic, patristic, medieval Catholic Christianity and later Protestantism.

Double predestination, the denial of the Eucharistic real presence and sacrifice, the restriction of the number of the sacraments to baptism and the Supper, the abandonment of the historic Episcopate and the apostolic succession of the ordained ministry, forensic justification, sola scriptura, the denial of the infallibility of the Church, the rejection of the veneration of images, the rejection of the invocation of the saints–these characteristic teachings of the Reformed tradition all dramatically depart from the faith of the Fathers.

Sadly so. And the fact that a small number of high-minded, well-intentioned, ecumenical Reformed Christians seek to modify some aspects of some of these tendencies or dogmatic positions, does not, and cannot alter or alleviate this huge difficulty of historical continuity and grounding in the Fathers. They are betwixt and between as long as they follow this course: the majority of their own Calvinist brethren will reject much of what they say, and their beliefs can never become identical to Orthodoxy or Catholicism or even Anglo-Catholicism in some respects. I hate to come off sounding like a naysayer, but what can I do? This is my sincere opinion.

The appeal to the Vincentian canon rings hollow on Reformed lips.

When closely scrutinized, I agree. Cardinal Newman couldn't even synthesize St. Vincent with Tractarian Anglicanism, let alone "Reformed Catholicism."

The Calvinist Reformation was not a conservative return to Patristic Christianity; it was a revolutionary recreation of Christianity–with the consequent destruction of Catholic culture–in the futile attempt to bypass fifteen hundred years of Church history to repristinate an apostolic Church that never existed.

This might be a harsh way of describing it, but I essentially agree. I think that Luther and Calvin were by essence revolutionaries, not "reformers." They maintained some things, true, but in many many respects they were novel innovators. And I don't simply state that because I am a Catholic. My apologetic writings have, I think, demonstrated the factuality of these contentions time and again. Most of what was distinctive in Luther and Calvin and other early Protestants was an innovation and a novelty in terms of previous Church Tradition. What was not an innovation was simply a preservation of what already existed (thus they deserve no particular credit for that). So the distinctives that make Protestantism what it is cannot be accepted by Catholics and Orthodox because they clash with received Tradition and apostolic succession. Protestantism was simply a different animal, because they had "switched the rules" whereby theological and doctrinal truth are determined.

Particularly unconvincing, I’m afraid to say, is the interpretation of Calvin’s doctrine of Eucharistic presence as catholic. While I readily grant that John Calvin’s understanding of the Eucharist is superior to the views that became representative in the Reformed churches, it still denies the fundamental Eucharistic realism that is found in the Fathers–and that includes St Augustine, who is perhaps closer to Calvin than the other Church Fathers. Contra Mr. Johnson, Calvin certainly cannot be rightly interpreted as being an authentic return to the Eastern view of Eucharistic transformation as found in St Cyril of Jerusalem.

I agree. I have written about that already on my blog, in a general sense (and dialogued with some reformed catholics), and I hope to soon examine the eucharistic theology of St. Cyril of Jerusalem and compare and contrast it with that of Calvin, since this particular claim has been made. From what I have seen in briefly examining St. Cyril, it looks like the claim will be shown to be insufficiently established.

For the Orthodox Christian, the consecrated elements are the Body and Blood of the Lord and are thus worthy of true adoration. For the Reformed, such a belief, and certainly all acts of prayer and adoration directed to the elements, is idolatrous.

Yes. Calvin has some very choice words for the Mass, which would hardly be able to be harmonized with the Fathers.

Darwell Stone’s A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist remains the classic treatment in English on this subject. And if I may, I also refer the brethren to my own humble attempts to discuss this subject, Eating Christ and Sacrament of Presence.

Thanks for the references.

I applaud the intent of these catholic-minded Reformed reformers–may their tribe increase!

As do I.

–but their project is unconvincing and doomed. Catholic movements within Protestantism have always been short-lived. The Mercersburg theology of Nevin and Schaff is a good example. The Tractarian movement was a different kind of movement, because it lacked all sympathy for the Reformation and sought to recall Anglicanism to a pre-Reformation identity; but it too failed.

History seems to show this, yes. Again, it is not pleasant to have to be a "prophet of doom", so to speak, but I am skeptical that our friends will succeed in changing much. If anything, they will (ironically) simply succeed in creating yet another denomination which will itself undergo the usual process of decay and revival and more decay, which has typified virtually all Protestant movements for 500 years. But having said that, I do commend them for their ecumenical effort, for the seriousness with which they approach Christian history and things like baptism and the Eucharist, and for their refreshing ecumenical attitude towards Catholics and welcome opposition to the massive structure of Protestant Anti-Catholicism. I would like to personally thank them for these things and more, and they have my deep respect.

To be Protestant is by definition to be non-catholic.

I agree with this. It is, after all, built into the very word, isn't it? What are they protesting? Well, obviously Catholicism. A Protestant might object: "No! Not Catholicism, but the corruptions which crept into Catholicism over hundreds of years." But once one analyzes what those corruptions are considered to be, it is clear that most of them are part and parcel of Catholicism, so that, in the end, it is the Catholic system which is being attacked or rejected, in those areas where Protestants dissented. This is easily demonstrated in particulars.

To be Protestant is to be a denomination, ruled by private judgment. That is part of the Protestant DNA. Whether that is a good or bad thing each person must decide for himself.

I agree again. It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction, over the course of many dialogues on this general topic of authority, for almost 14 years now, that Protestantism can overcome its inevitable recourse to private judgment. It is part and parcel of what it is. There are only so many options in matters of authority. If you reject episcopacy, apostolic succession, councils, the papacy, a binding Tradition, and the Rule of Faith as practiced by virtually all Christians for the first 1000 years and (if we exclude the papacy) by all for another 500 after that, then necessarily the final court of appeal winds up in the individual. People can protest and complain about that characterization all they want, but I have not seen any cogent disproof of that scenario. The last time I discussed it, I was told by two people that they intended to reply. They have not as of yet. I hope they do, because I consider this the most damaging argument against their claims.

* * * * *

[The following will be my words, in black, unless otherwise noted]

Another Anglican friend of mine, Edwin Tait, responded in the comments section of this post:

Pontificator, I’m not sure I accept your definition of “Protestant DNA,” or even that there is such a thing as “DNA” in Protestantism. By definition, Protestants have altered their DNA once in becoming Protestants. There is nothing necessarily preventing Protestants from altering their “DNA” again in a more Catholic definition, it seems to me. I admit that in practice this is a very difficult project–more so among the Reformed than among Anglicans or Methodists (the two Protestant traditions with which I currently have the most contact). But I wonder what solid basis you really have for dismissing it as impossible? This is a very live issue for me. If the project of “reformed catholicity” in its Anglican and Methodist variants is an impossible one, then clearly I must become Catholic or Orthodox. And I recognize that you’re facing a similar situation as you work through these issues.

If there is a "DNA" in Protestantism, then it is sola Scriptura and private judgment, since these are the aspects that all Protestant groups I am aware of hold in common. To yield up these principles of the rule of faith would be to cease to be Protestant. It would be like trying to play baseball without a bat. It is simply too central. If there is nothing at all which can be regarded as a "non-negotiable" in Protestantism, then we are really talking about nothing. But we are talking about something that exists: this thing called Protestantism.

Meanwhile, Paul Owen, over on the Reformed Catholicism blog, cites Luther and Charles Hodge saying nice stuff about the Catholic Church. This is all well and good (and I'm glad to see it); however, I myself do not understand how it is possible to synthesize these remarks with many others by Martin Luther which suggest quite otherwise. I have compiled many of them in my paper:

Did Martin Luther Regard the (Roman) Catholic Church as a Non-Christian, Apostate Institution?: Featuring dozens of citations from Luther's own writings; particularly On the Councils and the Churches (1539) and Against Hans Wurst (1541)

Perhaps someone can help me understand this. The same would apply, of course, to John Calvin. I see the reformed catholics citing his positive remarks about Catholic baptism and so forth, but I have seen much else where he excoriates the Catholic Church in the most offensive terms (especially when dealing with the Mass, which is, after all, our central act of worship every Sunday).

In the fourth century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of "the spiritual Sacrifice, the bloodless worship," and the "propitiatory victim." (Catechetical Lectures, 23, 8, 10) St. Ambrose believed that "It is He Himself that is offered in sacrifice here on earth when the Body of Christ is offered." (Commentaries on Twelve of David's Psalms, 38, 25) And later in that century, and early in the fifth, St. John Chrysostom writes:

Have reverence before this table, of which we all participate, before Christ, who was slain for us, before the sacrifice, which lies on the table.

(Homilies on Romans, 8, 8)

Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of His death; and this remembrance is one and not many . . . Since the Sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere . . . So too is there one Sacrifice.

(Homilies on Hebrews, 17, 3. See also The Priesthood, 3, 4, 177; Homilies on 1 Corinthians, 24, 2)

The venerable St. Augustine taught that "Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim." (City of God, 10, 20) He applies Malachi 1:11 to the Mass, calling it the "Sacrifice of Christians," and also cites the precedent of Melchizedek. (Sermon Against the Jews, 9, 13. Cf. Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57) Referring to this priest-king of Salem in his famous work, The City of God (16, 22), he writes: "The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world."

Martin Luther, although accepting a weakened form of the Real Presence, relegated the Mass (somewhat inconsistently) to the status of a mere memorial. As usual, he made a number of polemical remarks on the subject, calling the Mass "the abomination standing in the Holy Place." (Against Henry VIII, [1522]; referring to Daniel 9:27) Luther's successor Philip Melanchthon felt certain that "the cruel raging of the Turks is inflicted now as a punishment for the idolatry in the Mass." (Loci Communes, 1555 ed., chapter 22. From translation of Clyde L. Manschreck, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982 [Oxford Univ. Press ed. of 1965], 221).

John Calvin, arguably more influential for later Protestantism than Luther himself, unleashed his full fury against this longstanding Christian belief:

The height of frightful abomination was when the devil . . . blinded nearly the whole world with a most pestilential error - the belief that the Mass is a sacrifice . . . It is most clearly proved by the Word of God that this Mass . . . inflicts signal dishonor upon Christ, buries and oppresses his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which came to us from it . . .

This perversity was unknown to the purer Church . . . It is very certain that the whole of antiquity is against them . . . Augustine himself in many passages interprets it as nothing but a sacrifice of praise . . . Chrysostom also speaks in the same sense . . .

But I observe that the ancient writers also misinterpreted this memorial . . . because their Supper displayed some appearance of repeated or at least renewed sacrifice . . . I cannot bring myself to condemn them for any impiety; still, I think they cannot be excused for having sinned somewhat in acting as they did. For they have followed the Jewish manner of sacrificing more closely than either Christ had ordained or the nature of the gospel allowed . . .

The Mass . . . from root to top, swarms with every sort of impiety, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege.

(Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559 ed., Book IV, chapter 18, sections 1, 9-11, 18. From translation of Ford L. Battles [edited by John T. McNeill], Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2 volumes, 1960, vol. 2, 1429-1430, 1437, 1439-40, 1446)

How can one consider another a Christian "brother" when that person's weekly worship is regarded as "abomination," "blasphemy," and "idolatry"? Calvin even errs on the
plain facts of early Church history, as demonstrated in the proofs from the Fathers presented above. These are some of the many questions I would (with all due respect and appreciation) ask "Reformed Catholics."

Christians at least made attempts to achieve further unity (however ultimately fruitless) in the 16th century, such as the Diet of Augsburg in 1530

S. Joel Garver's On The "Catholic Question" (With Commentary by Dave Armstrong)

Dr. Stephen Joel Garver is an assistant professor of philosophy at La Salle University in Philadelphia, who writes also on theological topics. He is a Reformed Protestant. Joel's words will be in black and mine in blue. See his complete essay. I will not respond to everything, but rather, to selected portions where I disagree (but I didn't all that much), or which are particularly stimulating and thought-provoking (the latter are numerous, as Dr. Garver is an excellent and ecumenical writer, with lots of important insights to offer). His words will be in blue. See also the background documents:

Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT)
The Gift of Salvation
ACE: An Appeal to Evangelicals
--------------------------------------------------------------

My primary focus here is not upon social or political issues or inter-confessional cooperation per se. Instead, my focus is upon the possibility that 20th century Roman Catholicism, at least in certain quarters of it, has reconfigured itself so that it is more open to the genuine concerns of the Protestant Reformation and is more able to incorporate important Protestant distinctives concerning justification into its own theological interests and traditions.

I think this is true. Dialogue and ecumenism have definitely taken a giant leap forward in the last 100 years (especially the last 50). I think that often it is the case that we are not as far apart on many issues in actuality, as many on both sides have supposed. That is a function of increased mutual education and understanding. And Catholics can accept many things that Protestants believe as not contrary to existing dogmas. This was a strong underlying theme of Louis Bouyer's book from 1958: The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism.

Furthermore, I believe that, among the various Protestant confessional traditions, Reformed theology has a unique ability and responsibility to engage Catholicism on these matters.

I agree, though Lutheranism and traditional Anglicanism are not far behind in that respect, and closer to Catholic thought in specific areas (such as the Eucharist in Lutheranism and the authority of Tradition in Anglicanism).

The various statements which have been produced, it seems to me, do not engage the relevant doctrinal and theological issues at a level that is sufficiently deep, at least not deep enough to allay my fears of too hasty of a unity or too harsh of a polemics.

I disagree with this. It is the very nature of such statements that they function in a "creed-like" fashion within an ecumenical framework and context. Such summaries are not intended to be extensive theological treatises, nor can they be. They are basic tools for further, much more involved discussion (and distinct from the latter). They are, in a word, a "start."

I question the advisability of an ecumenical process that is premised upon less centrally doctrinal concerns and the danger, therein, of relativizing the truth-claims of the Christian Gospel as those have been understood within classical Protestantism.

These are attempts at finding what we truly have in common, and areas of almost total agreement. Social and political and moral issues are often areas of common ground, so they were emphasized in the ECT document. It is an effort to promote what Protestant apologist Francis Schaeffer called "co-belligerency" against the zeitgeist and secular world which all Christians confront and challenge. I don't see that "relativizing" is in play here. Acknowledging whatever we have in common (e.g., sola gratia) is not watering-down anything. It is simply stating that "we agree on points a, b, and c. We still disagree on d, e, and f." No one has to deny their own distinctives. This is what I regard as the practical genius and workability of ECT. It's a realistic approach to ecumenism; neither a liberal compromise nor a pie-in-the-sky pretense that groups agree on particulars when in fact they do not.

Furthermore, such dangers are heightened, it seems to me, when such ecumenical projects are pursued outside of the framework of established ecclesiastical organizations, among para-church ministries. It is not clear to me that such public declarations of unity are necessary or salutary for continued cooperation between Christians from a variety of churches. Still, the goal of unity in truth, among all Christians, is praiseworthy.

Well, one must start somewhere. Parachurch organizations have been the source of many helpful initiatives and endeavors among Protestants, and even in the Catholic Church, there is a growing lay involvement (encouraged by Vatican II and Pope John Paul II) such as the movement I am myself a part of: lay apologetics and evangelism. Both sides should certainly seek to be in accord with the more "official" doctrines that they are seeking to represent.

In the case of ACE [Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals], I do not doubt that their response is motivated by a zeal for maintaining our Reformation distinctives which we all should rightly see as important and central to the message of the Gospel. The efforts of ECT are, evidently, a great worry to ACE, in that ECT can appear to compromise that Gospel message in the ways I have outlined already.

I think this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the goals and nature of ECT, and a needless alarmism. ECT does not require Protestants or Catholics to give up their distinctives. It only highlights the common ground. I happen to believe that the Gospel can be defined in a (biblical) fashion that includes all the major Christian traditions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism), and I have seen various prominent Reformed writers (e.g., N.T. Wright) make the same point. He wrote:

When Paul refers to ‘the gospel’, he is not referring to a system of salvation, though of course the gospel implies and contains this, nor even to the good news that there now is a way of salvation open to all, but rather to the proclamation that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth has been raised from the dead and thereby demonstrated to be both Israel’s Messiah and the world’s true Lord. ‘The gospel’ is not ‘you can be saved, and here’s how’; the gospel, for Paul, is ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’.

(Rutherford House lecture: New Perspectives on Paul)

I don't believe that the Gospel is confined to the Reformed Protestant sophisticated soteriological version of it (TULIP, etc.); I think it is larger than that, as a matter of category. See my papers:

The Gospel, as Preached by the First Christians

Good News: An Evangelical / Catholic Presentation of the Gospel Message

What is the Gospel?

Therefore, I don't see that ECT forces anyone to compromise. It is a sort of Mere Christianity effort (for those who are familiar with C.S. Lewis). Lewis himself wrote in that book that Christians ultimately need to go into their own "rooms" (which represented denominational traditions) but that they could come into the great hall which represented those doctrines held in common by all Christians. That is what ECT is about.

In the following remarks I make use of two documents in particular, ECT's "The Gift of Salvation" (hereafter "Gift") and ACE's "An Appeal to Fellow Evangelicals" (hereafter "Appeal"). My basic thesis is the following. Whatever the peculiar motivations of the ECT statement and no matter how problematic those motivations may or may not be, I cannot see that "The Gift of Salvation" affirms anything in regard to Catholic and Protestant unity that is not true as far as it goes.

. . . the co-signers claim that each of their traditions may be understood in such a way so that they may jointly affirm a modest commonality in faith between Catholics and Evangelicals, one that is, on the part of the various signatories, fully consistent with, convinced by, and faithful to their respective traditions . . .

In this regard it is important to note that nowhere does "Gift" imply that no traditional differences remain on how the full implications of the Gospel are to be understood. Some of those differences are even said to be "persistent" and "serious," thereby requiring "further and urgent exploration." Thus, "Gift" evinces a willingness to admit that there are areas in which Catholics and Evangelicals cannot yet agree.


Good.


The fact that "Gift" does not affirm the doctrine of "sola fide" in its precise Reformational formula is really no surprise. First, the document never claims to do so. Second, so long as they wish to remain faithful to Catholic teaching, it is not possible for the Catholic participants to affirm the sola fide formulation . . . The Council of Trent closed the door on the option of affirming the sola fide formula in Canon 9 of its Sixth Session. Even as Protestants, we wish to maintain that while only faith justifies, faith alone does not. The "sola" of sola fide is adverbial, not adjectival. As the post-reformation Reformed theologian Francis Turretin writes, "faith alone does not justify, but only faith justifies; the coexistence of love with faith in him who is justified is not denied, but its co-efficiency or cooperation in justification" (Institutes of Elenctic Theology).

Despite the real differences, there is very significant common ground between the two traditions, which are not nearly as far apart as the common polemics on both sides would suggest. See my papers:

Reflections on Faith and Works and Initial Justification

Martin Luther on Sanctification and the Absolute Necessity of Good Works as the Proof of Authentic Faith

I doubt that the denial of imputation necessarily amounts to a denial of the Gospel itself, at least so long as one maintains that salvation is by grace alone, because of Christ alone, and that faith is sufficient for receiving it. Experience and history suggest that such a doctrine can lead to saving knowledge of Christ. And the "Gift" statement appears to be affirming at least this much in regard to justification.

Of course denying imputation is not a denial of the Gospel, because it is only a technical theory of soteriology, whereas the Gospel is the Good News of the events in Jesus' life and His death on the cross and Resurrection and Ascension (at least that is how the Bible clearly seems to define it). Protestant scholars Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler have both pointed out that imputed justification was essentially absent between the time of the apostles and Luther. So if it is essential to the Gospel, then there was no Gospel for all that time. This would include the "Gospel" of people like St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Anselm, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Before turning to the resources of Reformed theology, it will be helpful to outline precisely what a Catholic who is faithful to his church's teaching may or may not affirm in regard to imputation. The main difficulty here is, naturally, the Council of Trent. It spoke of inherent righteousness worked in us by Christ through the Holy Spirit flowing from the merits of Christ. It is by this righteousness that we are justified (i.e., made just; Trent never talks of being declared just). While, in some sense, this righteousness is truly ours and created in us, it is also God’s justice "for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified by its inherence in us, that same is of God" (Decree of the Sixth Session, Chapter 16).

Now, in itself, this does not eliminate an affirmation of "double justification" as proposed by the Colloquy and Diet of Regensburg in 1541 (also known as the Diet of Ratisbon; the "Regensburg Book" or "Liber Ratisbonensis" can be found in Melanthonis Opera, Corpus Reformatorum 4:190-238). According to the doctrine of duplex iustificare we are declared just in virtue of the imputation of Christ's justice and are made just in virtue of the infusion of Christ's justice (on the Protestant side Melanchthon, Bucer, Pistorius, and probably Calvin seemed willing to accept this; on the Catholic side it was Cardinal Contarini, Eck, Gropper, and Pflug). Thus "justification" is used in a dual sense, to cover what is affirmed in the Protestant doctrines of forensic justification and sanctification. The difficulty is that Trent, in an apparent reference to Regensburg, asserts that the infused, inherent righteousness of which it speaks is the "single [unica] formal cause of justification" (Chapter 7). The use of "unica" here (solitary, unique of a kind, one and one alone), seems to close the door on any theories of "duplex iustitia" or "duplex iustificare."

Nevertheless, Trent never explicitly condemns double justification in any of the anathemas of its Canons, though it had opportunity to do so (and we know that some of the members of the Council of Trent were amenable to the doctrine). Moreover, Trent leaves the door open to a doctrine of double justification when it only condemns those who insist that we are justified,

by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and "the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5) and remains in them...

(Canon 11, Sixth Session; emphasis mine)

This seems to open the door to the inclusion of the imputation of the justice of Christ within justification (not distinguishing, at present, two kinds of justification), so long as infusion is not denied.

This is very helpful and constructive ecumenical analysis. I don't believe that Trent rules out imputation altogether (as long as infused justification is not thereby denied). Kenneth Howell, a convert from Reformed Protestantism, makes this point in an essay on my blog: Trent Doesn't Necessarily Exclude All Variants of Imputation.

Furthermore, even in "double justification" while infusion is a formal cause (causa formalis) of being made just, the other side of the duplex—being declared just—technically speaking, has no formal cause because it does not have reference to any subjective (i.e., formal) change in the individual. Imputation is not the "formal cause" of the forensic declaration and so the assertion of imputation does not contradict the idea that justification, qua being made righteous, has a single (unica) formal cause.

. . . It seems to me that perhaps those of us who are Reformed rather than Lutheran would have hope that some kind of rapprochement between Protestants and Catholics is possible on this issue, especially in light of the modern developments within Catholic biblical and theological studies. After all, the central motif of Calvinian theology is not merely "imputation" (especially as that is understood in some sectors of confessional Lutheranism), but union with Christ. As Calvin himself writes:

Therefore, that joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our heart—in short, that mystical union—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body—-in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.

(Institutes 3.11.10; emphasis mine)

Amen!

Calvin is not denying that justification (now being thought of in the narrower Protestant sense) is based on the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, nor that justification in the primary biblical sense, is a forensic declaration. But what he is denying, is that the divine action of the Father, through the Spirit, uniting us to Christ, is an action to be conceived of wholly imputatively. The very same action by which we are united to Christ, unites us with all his benefits. And so, Calvin might well affirm that, in this sense, justification is not by means of (as Trent would say) "a sole imputation" that excludes the "pouring forth of grace and charity," even if the purely forensic aspect of God's one action is not identical with the pouring forth of other graces. For Calvin, by receiving Christ himself (the grace of God), all that is his, is also ours--whether his legal title to righteousness and vindication before God or his own divine charity--and in the application of redemption one is not prior to another. Thus one of Calvin's favorite phrases to describe justification is "fellowship of righteousness," emphasizing that we are in Christ and he is in us.

This is an excellent example, I think, of where Catholic and Protestant theology are far closer than generally supposed, even though they are not identical. It is unfortunate that slogans and catch-phrases have been so widespread (especially in Protestant circles). They foster an "either/or" mentality that works contrary to an effort to understand those outside our own faith-traditions. We must not only learn what someone believes, but why they believe what they do, and what lies behind usually simplified almost mantra-like expressions of various doctrines, such as sola fide or infused justification.

Only with distinctively Reformed emphases, I think, can we meet the Catholic objections to the Protestant focus on imputation. Not all Protestants, however, may be entirely happy with these emphases, and they have, in reality, been historically the focus of anti-Reformed Lutheran polemics and even a matter of some dispute within the Reformed tradition itself . . .

Oh yes. There are those in all camps who will oppose any effort at recognizing common ground as intrinsically a compromise position or a distortion of one or both viewpoints. The anti-Catholics and anti-Protestants will both work against any such effort in the most stringent, oppositional terms. But that can't stop those of us who are very concerned with Christian unity and more mutual understanding.

Nevertheless, the distinctively Reformed focus on union with Christ can answer some of the Catholic objections to imputation. On the Reformed view justification need not be a mere "legal fiction" nor is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness something that occurs alone, apart from union with all of Christ’s other benefits. While Christ’s righteousness is a iustitia aliena in that it is not accomplished by us or in us, it is also a iustitia inhaerens in that Christ himself, with his forensically declared righteousness, is truly in us by his Spirit. While Christ’s righteousness is extra nos in that it finds its origin and is accomplished apart from us, it is also in nobis in that we ourselves, in the transformative and enlivening action of being raised in union with Christ, have fellowship with his righteousness. While differences between Catholics and Protestants do very much remain on this particular issue, we cannot continue to say that there is a complete impasse between the Catholic doctrine of infusion and Reformed doctrine of imputation. To do so would be to close a door on any further conversation.

I couldn't agree more. I think this is very well-stated and argued indeed.

While Catholics do emphasize the cooperation of the believer with divine grace, Catholics also may teach that the grace of cooperation is a divine gift and, within the Thomistic tradition, God is seen as acting in the sinner in a way that could well be described, in Reformed terms, as monergistic. Catholics can quite honestly state, in the words of the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, "Justification, as a transition from disfavor and unrighteousness to favor and righteousness in God’s sight, is totally God’s work" (paragraph 156.5; emphasis mine). This is because "as sinners...[people] are incapable of turning themselves to God to seek deliverance." Therefore, it must be the case that, "Justification takes place solely by God's grace." Thus whenever persons consent to God's justifying actions, "such personal consent [is] itself an effect of grace, not...an action arising from innate human abilities" (Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, paragraphs 19 and 20). Since this is case, we are never to place our trust in our own accomplishments, whether faith or works, but wholly in the mercy of Christ. It is of the very nature of faith to turn from self and apprehend Another.

To make room for "cooperation" or "assent" is not necessarily to replace Reformed monergism with a semi-Pelagian synergism. Rather, it is to place the human response of faith, which is truly an act of the person, within the framework of faith as an absolute gift . . . They [Catholics] too share with us the emphasis of Augustine and the Council of Orange that salvation is by grace alone (sola gratia).

This is a superb and wonderfully sympathetic description of Catholic theology. It is a delight to see such understanding coming from a non-Catholic and I highly commend Dr. Garver.

For now, I shall note that so long as we trust Christ alone, I cannot see how it affects our salvation whether or not we put our trust in Christ's righteousness as imputed or as infused. We are saved by faith in Christ, not faith in a particular doctrinal formulation. How Christ’s righteousness becomes ours is perhaps an area of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants, but it doesn’t undermine the saving power of the Gospel. If it did, then surely Augustine was not saved for he explicitly and self-consciously believed that it was infused and inwrought righteousness which justifies since he saw the meaning of the word "justification" as "to make just" (see, e.g., his De Spiritu et Littera 26, 45; cf. Alister McGrath’s Iustitia Dei vol 1[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986] for more on Augustine's views). In any case, an Evangelical could well argue that, since Protestants are correct and justification is in fact wrought by imputation, then the righteousness of Christ in which Catholics place their faith is, among other things, an imputed one, regardless whether or not they understand it in that sense.

. . . since Catholics hold that the gifts of faith and charity are given along with the gift of salvation as the means by which that salvation is received, they maintain the absolute primacy of grace. Since they maintain that faith and charity are Christ’s work of faith and charity in us, they maintain the absolute primacy of Christ’s work alone.

. . . the Second Vatican Council seems to have broadened the notion of faith beyond the narrowly intellectualistic definition of Trent. Thus it describes faith as that "by which man entrusts his whole self freely to God offering ‘the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals’ [Vatican I] and freely assenting to the truth revealed by Him" (Dei Verbum 5). Furthermore, the individualistic, abstract, Aristotelian categories of scholasticism (e.g., fides formata or informata) are being revised within Catholic theology by the introduction of more personalist and existentialist ones. Saving faith is not mere assensus, but includes the fiducia emphasized by the Reformers.

Bravo!!!! This is excellent!

There is much reason to believe that there is a significant material convergence on this issue of the sufficiency of faith for justification, at least among certain Catholics and certain Evangelicals. And this is a convergence that is entirely consistent with their respective traditions. If the Catholic co-signers of "The Gift of Salvation" are willing to say that what they "affirm here is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by faith alone," then I think we should take them at their word. At the very least, our reaction should not be to continue in anti-Catholic polemics that claim that Catholicism continues in a clear and persistent denial of sola fide.

Again, it is often discovered that when the two sides really talk to each other and listen carefully, that they are not as far apart as either thought. I have much more hope that accord can be achieved with regard to the issue of justification than for the issue of authority and Tradition, where the differences are much greater.

I am hesitant, however, to maintain that our criterion of authenticity in regard to that Gospel is best expressed in the idea that justification by "faith alone" is the sole article by which the church stands or falls.

. . . the criterion of sola fide can risk becoming reductionistic in regard to the fullness of the biblical Gospel since the sacraments, preaching, the Lordship of Christ, and so on, are not simply dispensable. Such a criterion also focuses, it seems to me, too narrowly upon a particular formulation of the Gospel, one that does not possess a biblical warrant that is wholly beyond dispute. Thus, such a criterion does not address the possibility that the content of that Gospel may be accurately expressed in other terms. Given what we have seen in this essay, it appears that there is, at present, an open willingness within Catholicism (at least in certain of its quarters) to incorporate the concerns of the Reformation into its own theology.

In this light, I do not think that it is helpful to maintain, apart from further considerations, that the Catholic Church continues uniformly to preach a different Gospel or to have no authentic evangelism. To perpetuate that belief apart from careful study, theological precision, and extensive documentation, appears to caricature the best elements in Roman Catholic theology, if not to make an outright fabrication of them. In the past, such carelessness has, I believe, led any number of people to mistrust their Protestant leaders, theologians, and sources, even to the point where, in reaction, they abandoned their own Protestant distinctives to join the Roman Catholic Church. In this regard, Lorraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism stands as a crowning achievement in anti-Catholic pornography, leading more than one person astray with its vicious distortions and half-truths. As evangelical Protestants, we can and must do better than this. [bolding added]

I think Dr. Garver's way of approaching this general topic of ecumenism, particularly with regard to matters of justification and the Gospel, is exactly right, and should be followed by those on both sides who are interested in further unity and understanding across the party lines. I give this paper an A+ for the cogency of its arguments and the accuracy and profound insight of its content. Kudos!

Eric Svendsen's & Other Anti-Catholics' Inconsistent Use of Anti-Evangelical as a Description of Catholics

Ever since I have dealt with anti-Catholics (particularly after going online in March 1996), I have heard the objection ad nauseum that use of the term anti-Catholic is either a mere epithet (like calling someone a "moron" or an idiot" or a "bigot") or else that it is used inconsistently and arbitrarily, with complete subjectivity, exclusively by Catholics, in order to avoid real, substantive discussion. Also, some seem to think that its use is justified only in referring to political or violent agitation (that they would also wholly oppose), such as with the "Nativism" or the "Know-Nothing" movements of 19th-century America, where Catholics were run out of town, denied civil rights, or subjected to church-burnings, etc. Indeed, the latter is often the case, but this doesn't rule out a doctrinal, theological use.

This usage is, in fact, quite prevalent among historians and sociologists. I have compiled a lengthy paper which not only details the proper definition and use of the description anti-Catholic (i.e., in its theological / doctrinal sense), but also documents use of the term by no less than 55 such scholars, book titles, etc. (virtually all of them non-Catholic, insofar as their affiliation could be determined): Use of the Term Anti-Catholic in Protestant and Secular Scholarly Works of History and Sociology.
Briefly, the definition I have used for years, both as a Protestant and a Catholic, is:

Belief that the Catholic Church and its set of doctrines and beliefs is a non-Christian institution; not worthy to be regarded as Christian. Those Catholics who manage to attain to real Christianity must do so despite Catholic teaching, not because they fully adhere to it. In other words, you can't be a good, faithful, obedient Catholic and be a Christian theologically or doctrinally.

That paper was prompted by comments such as the following by "Romans45" (one Ronnie Brown), a prominent anti-Catholic Internet figure. These are typical of what one might hear from many anti-Catholic luminaries, and "drove me over the edge" to document the falsity of such charges once and for all. The drone is very familiar:

There is no standard definition of "anti" in reference to religious denominations. It is a made up term and therefore individuals make up their own definition . . .

Make no mistake about there is no standard definition. Every Catholic that uses it defines it according to their own whims.

. . . some even defined it so that it basically includes any and everyone who disagrees with them . . .

I think it is totally meaningless and only used as a prejudicial term . . . Everybody uses it, but few agree on what it really means, few use it consistently, . . .

I don’t accept the loaded definition that Catholics use and neither does any dictionary or any other objective reference work. It is only a prejudicial term invented by Catholic apologists.

They can define whatever they want, but that doesn’t make it the standard definition even when they disagree amongst themselves about what it means.
Furthermore, no one has to accept their definition especially since it is only defined by a few apologists who have no real authority even over those in their own camp.

. . . anyone who arbitrarily makes up a prejudicial definition and then claim it is a standard definition.

. . . it is an irrational position . . .

After I produced some 50 scholarly examples to the contrary, Ronnie at least admitted this much:

OK, maybe the term is not invented by Catholic apologists, but the prejudicial way in which they use it is a novelty.

Now, this being the case, one would think that the anti-Catholics would refrain from using the term "anti-Evangelical" or anti-Protestant or anti-Christian (when used of a Catholic, implying that he is "against" Christianity when he critiques Protestants), since the use of anti-Catholic is so decried by them as an invalid description and alleged purely irrational, prejudiced insult. But this is not the case (as usual, a double standard must apply in the anti-Catholic mentality). And exhibit #1 is Dr. Eric Svendsen:

Eric Svendsen

Writing about the rules for his NTRMin Areopagus board:

"Forum Rules--please read BEFORE posting for the first time"
3/6/03 10:08 am

[the bolding is my own emphasis, as throughout]

. . . the board offers a forum for asking about, and/or answering anti-Christian (read, anti-Evangelical) arguments posed by other religious groups, or even non-religious groups. It is not a forum for non-Evangelicals to air various antagonistic anti-Evangelical agendas . . .

7. All posters are asked to show respect for the views of the host site, whether you happen to agree with those views or not. For a detailed list of those views, click the "Beliefs" link in the navigation bar to the left. To those who feel they cannot comply with this rule, please feel free to visit another discussion board where you may be more comfortable. This applies especially to non-Evangelical posters who have a history of antagonism against Evangelicalism . . .

9. Thou shalt not post links to Roman Catholic apologetic sites, or any other site that has an anti-evangelical agenda.

Referring to same:

"Re: forensic justification"
1/6/04 1:01 pm

. . . I think you had better take some time to read the Forum Rules regarding anti-Evangelical agendas before posting in this forum again.

In a response to Tim Enloe, a Presbyterian with whom he had a falling-out:

"Tim Enloe's blog" 4/1/04 12:14 pm

. . . known anti-Evangelical antagonists like Dave Armstrong . . .

In a post about Reformed scholar Paul Owen:

"The Coppersmith in Paul Owen"
4/2/04 10:32 am

. . . one who decided to send the critique to an anti-Evangelical antagonist . . .

Indeed, Owen seems to enjoy rubbing shoulders with heretics. He has been invited to write articles in Mormon journals, and he has befriended one of the most vitriolic anti-evangelical Roman Catholic epologists that exist [John Pacheco].

. . . opted instead to send it to an anti-Evangelical Roman Catholic . . .

I submit that if Eric doesn't like the term anti-Catholic, he ought to stop using its equivalent, anti-Evangelical. Or if he wants to keep using it, he (and those who follow and surround him, including Ronnie Brown and others who have complained about the term anti-Catholic) should have no objection to anti-Catholic (rightly-understood). He should get with his good friend James White, who is at least consistent, and refrains from using these sorts of terms in describing Catholic critics of various aspects of Protestantism. He is equally wrong in his analysis of the meaning and use of anti-Catholic, but at least he doesn't hypocritically do that which he condemns. Fellow anti-Catholic and associate and moderator on Svendsen's NTRMIn Areopagus board, Jason Engwer, seems not to be aware of that board's own terminology in its rules and the use by his boss Eric. He points out that James White doesn't use the term anti-Evangelical (thus implying it is wrong or at least unhelpful to do so), yet is oblivious to the repeated use by Eric Svendsen:

"Re: Hmmm"
11/3/03 5:18 pm

The term "anti-Catholic" has a history, not only in online apologetics, but also in politics and elsewhere. Roman Catholics use that phrase much more than Evangelicals use the phrase "anti-Evangelical". Often, Evangelical ministries will refer to Roman Catholic apologists as "Roman Catholic", whereas Roman Catholic ministries will refer to Evangelical apologists as "anti-Catholic". I think the term "anti-Catholic" is used, and in fact abused, much more than the term "anti-Evangelical". While the term "anti-Evangelical" could be abused in some contexts, the history of the term's use so far seems to be much less questionable than the use of "anti-Catholic".

One illustration I would point to is James White's interaction with Roman Catholic apologists over the years. He's been involved in discussing Roman Catholicism in many public forums for more than a decade, and there's a long trail of literature we can trace between him and Roman Catholics responding to him. He has frequently been referred to as "anti-Catholic" by Roman Catholics, whereas I don't recall him ever applying the term "anti-Evangelical" to Catholics he disagrees with. If he has ever used such terminology, it's at least rare enough that I've missed it or forgotten it, despite having read so much of his material and listened to so many of his debates.

Another example I would cite is my own web site. I've been writing articles in response to Catholics for years, and I don't think I've ever used the term "anti-Evangelical". I've frequently been called "anti-Catholic", though.

(complete post)

In another post shortly afterwards, Jason asks:

How many Evangelical apologists can you think of who frequently use the term "anti-Evangelical"? I can think of many Roman Catholics who have used the term "anti-Catholic" against me and against other people. Catholic Answers, for example, uses it a lot.

("Re: Persecution complex" / 11/3/03 5:51 pm)

Well, to answer his question, I am happy to direct Mr. Engwer to his comrade Eric Svendsen, who owns the very board he was writing on, and is a published full-time anti-Catholic Protestant apologist with a doctorate. Engwer is trying to make one point about relative frequency of use. That is one thing. But implied in his argument is that use of anti-Catholic is wrong in principle. If we grant that and accept his reasoning, then clearly (again, by his own standards and criteria), anti-Evangelical would be equally wrong, whenever used, no matter how infrequent. What's wrong is wrong. Thus Svendsen (and others documented above and below) would be guilty of the same shortcoming and ought to be condemned with equal vigor if the very term is inherently objectionable. This is about internal inconsistency and double standards.

Moderator "Hilasterion" jumped in and offered a lame reply when a Catholic pointed out the inconsistency that I note (misspellings corrected):

As I said, the term anti-evangelical is NOT used in the same way anti-catholic is. Thus the terms are no more than superficially similar . . . The argument is easy to maintain. We use anti-evangelical to describe, as the rules state, antagonistic postings. Whereas anti-catholic is bandied about with such frequency as to be little more than a slur. You show lack of discernment in not noting the difference.

("Re: Persecution complex" / 11/4/03 7:47 am)

This simply begs the question. He states what he assumes but does not demonstrate it or make some sort of plausible, logical argument to back up his contention. I could go into greater logical detail, but I trust that the reader can go read the remarks by Svendsen and others and deduce that there is little or no difference in the usage. If one is wrong, then so is the other.

Of course it needs to always be pointed out that so-called "anti-Evangelicals" such as myself do not regard Protestants as non-Christians. I have the greatest respect for them, and write papers about that. I have a million links to Protestant websites. Eric doesn't even allow a link to a Catholic site on his Areopagus discussion board. He doesn't think Catholicism is Christian. That's why we call his belief-system in that regard anti-Catholic, because it denies the reality that Catholicism is Christian, and is a big lie. Others fall into the same mistake and hypocrisy:

John F. MacArthur, Jr., Pastor, Grace Community Church and host of the radio ministry, Grace to You.

Writing in a review of a book by Eric Svendsen:

A chorus of squawking trumpets is playing many uncertain sounds these days, and the evangelical movement is in desperate need of a clarion blast that will rise above the din. Eric Svendsen's Evangelical Answers sounds just such a note. This is a perceptive, intelligent, and solidly biblical reply to the recent barrage of Roman Catholic anti-evangelical propaganda. If you have been confused by the claims of modern Catholic apologists and are looking for reliable answers on a rock-solid biblical foundation, I urge you to read this book.

Even reputable 19th-century Church historian Philip Schaff joins in, though he (unlike Svendsen and MacArthur) continues to regard Catholicism as a Christian system of belief (thus is nor to be classified as an anti-Catholic):

Mediaeval Catholicism is pre-evangelical, looking to the Reformation; modern Romanism is anti-evangelical, condemning the Reformation, yet holding with unyielding tenacity the oecumenical doctrines once sanctioned, and doing this all the more by virtue of its claim to infallibility . . . Catholicism and Protestantism represent two distinct types of Christianity which sprang from the same root, but differ in the branches.

(The History of the Christian Church, Volume VII: HISTORY OF MODERN CHRISTIANITY THE REFORMATION. FROM A.D. 1517 TO 1648. CHAPTER I. ORIENTATION. § 2. "Protestantism and Romanism")

The famous 19th-century Calvinist preacher Charles Spurgeon can also be added to this list:

We have nowadays around us a class of men who preach Christ, and even preach the gospel; but then they preach a great deal else which is not true, and thus they destroy the good of all that they deliver, and lure men to error. They would be styled "evangelical" and yet be of the school which is really anti-evangelical.

("Gems From Spurgeon," compiled by James Alexander Stewart)

Prominent anti-Catholic Richard M. Bennett, in his article, "The Alignment of New Evangelicals With Apostasy," where he rails against ecumenical efforts, outdoes all the others in all his dramatic use of (usually irrational) "anti" language:

The real effect of the New Evangelical compromise with the Gospel is to put a stop to the evangelization of Roman Catholics across the world. If this compromise of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is accepted, then Bible believing churches will refrain from evangelizing Catholics. The impact on the true church in third world Catholic countries in Central and South America, in Africa, as well as in Spain, Portugal, and the Philippines, is already apparent. If this anti-Evangelical trend continues unchecked it will become ruinous to the spiritual welfare of millions of souls. But this is exactly the policy the ECT signers promulgate . . .

. . . Neuhaus’ anti-Scriptural words . . .

J. I. Packer like a modern Pied Piper is leading many thousands of Evangelicals astray. Charles Colson, Bill Bright, Mark Noll, Pat Robertson, Os Guinness, Timothy George, and T.M. Moore to mention just a few of the more prominent New Evangelicals have publicly denied the Gospel in endorsing the anti-biblical terms and erroneous doctrinal concepts of the Church of Rome. All together, they are falsely identifying Catholics as “our brothers and sisters in Christ”, thereby reinforcing the tragic and catastrophic delusions of these poor souls and denying them the substance of saving truth! . . .

One who goes by the nickname "A.believer" launched into an attack on yours truly (in the process lying about and grossly misrepresenting the goals and nature of my Luther research), using the same flawed terminology, on Christian Forums (7-24-03):

Anyone who's been involved in discussions about issues related to the Reformation with people who have a vested interest in believing and in having others believe that the Reformation was the result of a wicked, unstable, and debauched reprobate seeking to undermine legitimate, God-ordained authority, has probably been confronted with certain isolated quotes by, and "facts" about, Martin Luther that caused him or her to raise an eyebrow. RC convert, Dave Armstrong, for example, has a whole section of his website dedicated to proving the "instability" and "immorality" of Luther. It isn't difficult to discern, when confronted with one or two sentence quotes such as Mr. Armstrong has posted on his website, when no recourse to the original documents from whence they came is provided, that something fishy is going on. Even so, one wonders, where do people get these things from and what, if any, basis in truth might they have?

I was recently made aware of a long tradition of "anti-evangelical" authors who sought to poison the well against Luther and the other Reformers, with the intent of a priori closing peoples minds to honest consideration of the truths that sparked the Reformation--a tradition that began most notably with a man by the name of Johannes Cochlaeus--a contemporary of Martin Luther. Author Cochlaeus apparently had no compunction about ripping Luther's words completely out of context and juxtaposing these quotes onto his anti-Luther pamphlets in order to make Luther appear as a fairly demonic lunatic, and he showed no restraint in airing his opinion that Luther was, indeed, a "child of the devil."

Facts are facts. Related papers of mine contain nothing even remotely "anti-Evangelical", let alone "anti-Luther." They were simply concerned with Luther's historical belief pertaining to Mariology.

Michael Hamblin, -- also seemingly not an anti-Catholic himself -- in a page entitled "Evangelical Resources on Roman Catholicism," writes:

. . . Few are as "anti-Protestant" as the professional Roman Catholic apologists . . .

This ought to be sufficient to establish my contention . . .

Dave (right) sharing the Gospel with Mormons (as an evangelical Protestant) in 1989 at the Ann Arbor Art Fair. I did street witnessing for ten straight years at that event (1981-1990). This is the only known picture of me evangelizing.

Gospel Truth

I was delighted to find that not only N.T. Wright (in one of the papers listed on my sidebar), but also now P. Andrew Sandlin, a prominent Reformed writer today, basically agree with what I have been contending for twenty years, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic; i.e., that the Gospel is not a formulaic mantra of technical soteriology, or TULIP, or simply "faith alone," but rather, the Good News (the word's literal meaning, after all) of the events of Jesus' life, death, Resurrection, and Ascension, which make salvation possible. It is refreshing to see several Protestants comment upon what I have thought was rather obvious, and an explicitly biblical proposition, in light of the opposition I have often received from Protestants to this notion. Another Reformed writer, S. Joel Garver, states the same thing in an important and oft-cited Internet paper I shall shortly comment on here.

Sandlin writes:

The Gospel is the evangel, the good news, closely related to the kerygma, the message and proclamation of the God of heaven and earth anchored in redemptive events of human history - notably the loving, sacrificial death; victorious, bodily resurrection; and glorious, conquering second coming of Jesus.

He then goes after some distressingly common distortions of the Gospel in certain Protestant circles today:

The Gospel is not a free ticket to a halo-and-harp-studded heaven for rebels who want a little eternal life insurance. The Gospel is not merely a Get-Out-of-Hell-Free card. The Gospel is the trumpet blast of the King.

He rightly distinguishes between technically correct soteriological belief and knowing-in-Whom-we-have-believed-and-trusted-for-salvation:

They need not know "theology" to be saved; they do need to know that Jesus and His redemptive work is their only hope and that in trusting Him, they are abandoning themselves to Him.

See his entire article, What is the Gospel?, from the Reformed Catholicism blog.

Here are my own related papers. The first dates originally from 1982. I recently added some commentary designed to show how Catholics would express things differently, or add a few points to the usual evangelical presentation of the Gospel:

Good News: An Evangelical / Catholic Presentation of the Gospel Message

What is the Gospel?

The Gospel, as Preached by the First Christians

A Dozen Years Ahead of Our Time: I had the 'fro back in '92. Now hundreds of Pistons fans wear 'fro wigs to the home games at the Palace. My oldest son also anticipated the currently-fashionable bald NBA look!

Big Ben Wallace and "Mr. Big Shot" Chauncey Billups celebrate more Pistons heroics

Pistons vs. Lakers in NBA Finals: Back to '88 & '89

I love it when history repeats itself. My beloved Detroit Pistons, led by two-time defensive player of the year Ben Wallace (of the big "fro"), super-consistent scorer Rip Hamilton (a sort of Reggie Miller clone), and Rasheed Wallace, will be going up against the Lakers, with their four future Hall of Famers (Shaq, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton). Both teams reached the Finals by a very similar path. Lower-level playoff teams were first faced (Houston and Milwaukee), then the defending Eastern and Western Conference champions were overcome (New Jersey and San Antonio -- the latter being the 2003 NBA champions). Lastly, both defeated the teams with the best records in East and West: Indiana and Minnesota.

The comparisons end there. The Pistons (following Larry Brown's coaching emphasis) are a defensive team (they allowed the fewest opponent points of any team, and set a record of holding adversaries under 70 five straight times, and allowed the lowest field goal percentage also). The Lakers specialize in offense. Kobe had the third highest point-per-game average this year and Karl Malone is second all-time in points scored, after Kareem Jabbar.

A Motown native and lifelong metro Detroit resident like me can't help but fondly recall the old days of the "Bad Boys" (Isiah Thomas, Bill Laimbeer, Joe Dumars, Rick Mahorn, Dennis Rodman, Vinnie Johnson et al). There were basketball heroics in those days of almost mythic proportions. You always hear about Bird and Magic, from that era, and then Jordan in the early 90s (sort of the Holy Trinity of basketball from '80 to '95, with a nod also to Dr. J.). But what is less known is the fact that the Pistons -- led by Thomas: one of the 50 all-time greats of the NBA and arguably the best "little man" ever, and an extraordinary clutch shooter -- defeated all these teams, led by Bird, Magic, and Jordan, in or near their prime, and were the only team to do so. That was quite a feat! The road (like life itself) was rough and often heartbreaking, though.

In 1987 the Pistons were playing Bird's Celtics in the Eastern Conference Finals (they were the NBA champions in 1984 and 1986). We were about to beat them on their own court, but Larry Bird stole a Thomas inbound pass and the Celtics scored and won. It's a famous replay that is often shown. They won the next game to take the series.

In 1988, the Pistons finally overcame the Celtics, who never returned to the Finals again. We were the last team in the Eastern Conference to beat them while Bird was still in his prime. We then had to find a way to defeat Magic's Lakers: one of the best teams of all time, with five championships (Magic Johnson came from Michigan State University, which had won the NCAA national championship, beating Bird's Indiana team). That series went seven games, but Isiah Thomas sprained his ankle in the fifth or sixth game, and couldn't play in the seventh. But for that, we very well could have won, and thus overcome the Lakers when they were in peak form -- something even Bird and the Celtics couldn't do the year before.

In 1989, we did win the Finals 4-0, but Magic Johnson sprained his ankle in the second game and couldn't play anymore. So that tainted the victory a bit (to put it mildly), but we had, after all, won the first game in LA before Magic got injured. Magic's Lakers never won another Final. They were defeated by the Chicago Bulls in the 1992 Finals.

Michael Jordan is arguably the greatest player of all time, with the highest points-per-game average. The Pistons were the last team to defeat the Bulls before they went on to win their six championships and were unbeatable. This was in the 1989 and 1990 playoffs (possibly we played them in 1988, too; I don't recall).

We won the championship the second year in a row in 1990, against Clyde Drexler's Portland Trailblazers.

So the "Bad Boy" Pistons of the late 80s and early 90s were victorious over all the best players and teams of that time. I think that is something to be very proud of. I doubt that many people give us much of a chance this year (and I have my own strong doubts, based on disturbingly uneven playoff performances), against the three-time NBA champs, but I wouldn't be too sure that it is a foregone conclusion. For one thing, defense often prevails over offense, in all sports. Bill Russell used to regularly outplay Wilt Chamberlain. Good pitching trumps good hitting in baseball, every time. If a good quarterback throws five interceptions because of skillful cornerbacks, his team will likely lose.

The Lakers' scorers won't do quite as well with defensive, shot-blocking dynamo Ben Wallace in their face, and tall, long Rasheed Wallace and Tayshaun Prince also in the paint and all over their opponents (and all three block shots: the Pistons had 19 of those in one of the playoff games). That changes things a lot. Malone and Payton are also old and might be worn down by our tenacious defense (even 24-year-old Ron Artest was fatigued in the last game he played against us, as announcer Doc Rivers stated). The brilliant, often Jordan-like Kobe Bryant is quite a streaky shooter. Strong defense will probably make him even more so.

We have good back-up big men who can foul Shaq (Mehmet Okur and Elden Campbell) and make him earn his points the hard way. We can beat these guys, but it will not be easy at all, needless to say. It will require our best game every night. And the Pistons, unfortunately, have not done that in many playoff games. They seem to play their best only if their backs are up against the wall.

We did it before, overcoming all odds; we can do it again. It's the "go to work / hard workin'" midwestern Pistons against the flashy, West Coast, running soap opera, "Payton Place" Lakers. This will be a fun series, whoever prevails. The last time my Pistons were in the Finals, I was just starting to seriously consider the Catholic faith, and didn't have any children yet (my first was born in 1991). The Tigers were last in the World Series (winning) in 1984, and we watched the games during our honeymoon in the Smokey Mountains. The Red Wings have won the Stanley Cup three times recently but I don't follow hockey.

Basketball is my favorite sport to watch, by far (baseball has always been my favorite to play), so I'm in seventh heaven. My second oldest son is almost 11 and a basketball nut (and can already outshoot me for short shots, though I beat him 20-4 and 20-0 in our two one-on-one games in our backyard LOL), so this is very exciting for him. He is about the same age I was when the Tigers won the World Series in 1968. What a thrill.

Go Pistons! Dee-fense! Dee-fense! Dee-troit! The Motor City!!!!!!! Home of the best sports and rock and roll fans in the world!

The NBA Finals start this Sunday on ABC. If the Pistons can manage to split the first two games in LA, then we will definitely be in for a good, close, dramatic series.

Note on E-Mail Letters Lost

After a computer upgrade on May 28th, I lost all e-mails that were sitting in my inbox. I generally can't promise to answer mail (see the note on my sidebar), but several letters mentioned websites which I had intended to link to. The only way I can hope to get those back is by announcing this publicly (and I will in my monthly updates, too). A few more, as I recall, were from people wanting to be added to my mailing list. Hopefully, y'all will see this and re-send such letters. Thanks for your understanding. But please understand that my time is limited, so I am forced to have a policy of not promising to answer personal letters. I have set aside much time for interaction on this blog. This blog is now the best place for my readers and other folks to get some "personal interaction" from me.

The "Ignorance" & "Poverty" of Jesus & the Disciples (?)

Finally back in business! I know your prayers must have done the trick! This is from an interesting exchange via e-mail with a friend of mine (and fellow metro Detroiter). Her words will be in blue:

A little while back I fired off an e-mail to you regarding the idea that Jesus and his disciples were dirty, poor and ignorant ..... the question came about because some friends attended a talk given by a fairly intelligent episcopalian Dean in which he raised the question about whether Jesus (and his friends - but mainly Jesus) were poor and ignorant... yes, I know the problems with episcopalians and Biblical interpretation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! However ..... here is the text of my question -If you have time, I'd really appreciate your thoughts. Is this actually a Church teaching? Is it to be found in early Church writings? Is this a later idea? It is of course often thrown at the Church that this was "how they controlled the masses" ... but I can't say that this sounds sensible at all.

It seems clear to me that they didn't have a lot of money. Somewhere it says that they were supported by several women. I don't know what the Church has said about it. It's pretty much common knowledge, I think. The patriarchs and kings were rich men, but those in the prophetic tradition usually were not. We see that in John the Baptist: the last of the prophets.

We always have this tradition that Jesus - and the disciples - were poor and ignorant (well, Jesus was not totally ignorant!!!!!!!!!!!!) - but you know what I mean) .... giving rise to speculations about whether Matt, Mark, Luke and John could have written gospels etc.

Not "ignorant," but relatively uneducated. Most of them were not intellectuals, from what we can tell. Several were fishermen. A tax collector might have been a little more educated (who knows?). Luke, however, was a doctor, and was an educated man. His Greek shows that (so I understand). I believe literacy was pretty widespread in Israel, so writing is no problem.

But also, there's always been some emphasis on Jesus being just plain 'poor' .... so we should not mind being poor too.

The Bible teaches us that it is not a disgrace to be poor, as long as we haven't caused our condition by not working (Paul wrote: "if any man does not work, let him not eat"). And it teaches that riches are not inherently evil, but they are the cause of many temptations, and often work against spirituality as an idol or distraction. I think the biblical attitude is expressed by Paul, where he says that he can be content in any situation: whether he has plenty or nothing, and is suffering (Philippians 4:11-13). He continued to make tents, but he did not always do so, and was supported by his flocks, or else had nothing at all on many occasions. He decided to preach the gospel "for free" (1 Cor 9:11-18). His position was that his labors as a missionary and evangelist were worthy of remuneration from other Christians and those whom he helped (and were now Christians), but that those he was preaching to should not have to pay for it.

Where does this come from? I know Jesus talks about the son of man having no where to lay his head - but that's kind of a poetic description of an itinerant preacher who does not buy a house and settle down but rather travels and stays with friends and family.

There is no indication that they have much money at all. In fact, when Jesus sent out the 70 to evangelize he told them not to take anything (Lk 10:4-7). They were like the early Franciscans: completely dependent upon the people to whom they preached the gospel. There are several little indications like that. It would take too long to locate all of them (that's your homework! LOL). E.g., Jesus told the rich young ruler to give up everything he had to follow Him. That indicates that all or many others had done the same.

Joseph was a carpenter - a worthy and important trade - he probably made a very reasonable income. And then there are our fishermen who owned their boats and nets and who would also have made a good income assuming a good catch. And Matthew of course was a tax collector so he could count, read and write and do his sums ...

Sure, but we have no indication in Scripture that Jesus did carpentry after the time of His baptism in the Jordan. We are specifically told that the fishermen "left their nets" and their trade; they gave it up (see Lk 5:10-11, Mt 4:18-22, Mk 1:16-20; cf. Mt 9:9 [Matthew] ). We have no reason to believe that Matthew would have continued collecting taxes; that would hardly fit in with his new task as a disciple. Jesus talks about "all who have left families" and so forth to follow Him, how they would be rewarded a hundredfold (Mk 10:29-30). The disciples had said to Him: "We have left everything to follow you" (Mk 10:28) It was a complete break. Therefore, it is a series of deductions based on indications like these which lead one to conclude that they were poor. But they were not "ignorant"; they were just relatively less educated and not of the intellectual class (as the scribes and Pharisees and rabbis would have been). Paul, of course, was an intellectual, and seems to even be a genius.

And Jesus read the scripture in the synagogue - so he could read - and then, what language would he have been reading?

Aramaic or Hebrew.

We hear about the gospel writers quoting primarily from the Septuagint (Greek, right?) ... so they could read Greek? So they could understand and speak Greek?

I believe so. There is some debate about whether the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic.

That would make them bi-lingual at least? Did the Roman occupying force speak latin? aramaic? greek?

Mostly Latin and Greek, I think. I'm no expert on all these linguistic questions.

How did our 'ignorant and poor' Jesus and disciples understand them thar Romans??

I think they spoke Greek as well, because the Middle East had been Hellenized. In The Passion, Mel Gibson had Jesus speaking Latin to Pilate. I'm sure he based that on some scholarship. One doesn't have to be an intellectual to know several languages, of course.

And then there was the gold, frankincense and myrrh that the 3 kings/wisemen/maggi (whatever the latest fashionable pc term might be) .. since THEY thought they were coming to visit a real KING they would not have brought just a teaspoon of each - they would have brought a generous portion, right?

That's a different question altogether. It looks like these were rich men, higher up in the social order.

So where do we get the idea of poverty, lack of education etc etc??

As far as I know, from the passages I have cited. When someone is more highly educated (Luke, Paul), that is mentioned in Scripture. Fishermen are not usually highly-educated intellectuals. And we can tell from the style of their writing. Luke is said to have a very sophisticated grasp of Greek. Paul's style and content is obviously on a very high level. Matthew, Mark, John, and Peter write on a more common, everyday level.

Is this chronological snobbery perchance? Or are there other first hand accounts that I've not yet read that describe poverty and ignorance?

Okay; now I'm gonna look up something in my New Bible Dictionary. Under "Poverty" (pp. 1016-1017) I found the following:

. . . so often were the rich oppressors that 'the poor' became almost a synonym for 'the pious' (Ps. 14:5-6).

. . . The worldly-minded Sadducees were generally wealthy, as were the tax-collectors.

Jesus was the son of poor parents (Lk 2:24), but there is no reason to suppose He lived in abject poverty . . . it appears that He used to pay the Temple tax (Mt. 17:24). Some of His disciples were reasonably well-to-do (Mk 1:20) and he had some fairly wealthy friends (Jn 12:3). He and the Twelve, however, shared a common purse (Jn 12:6). They were content to go without the comforts of home life (Lk 9:58), and yet found occasion for giving to the poor (Jn 13:29)

. . . the apostles were poor but made many rich (2 Cor 6:10).

Hope this was helpful to you.

Thanks so much, Dave! really appreciate your input: this is one of those areas where we take something for granted that might not be quite as we imagine it to be!

You make the valid point that "Fishermen are not usually highly-educated intellectuals" ...that may be true today, but I don't know that it was true back then only because a fisherman and a carpenter back then would have had a very different social status from fishermen and carpenters today...We can tell they were not highly polished intellectuals from the way they wrote but they could still have been what we would term nice, educated, comfortably off middle class professional folk.

And of course, there are those who gleefully claim that because of the poverty and lack of education the Gospels and other writings of the New Testament (with the exception of Paul's writing of course) are evidently 'fakes' of some kind - written MUCH LATER by people WHO NEVER KNEW JESUS etc. etc. and Paul has to be brought low by being called a bigot or something equally charming. The priest at [church name omitted to protect the guilty -- Episcopalian, I believe] told me that he thought Paul had got a number of things "wrong" --- you know the arguments put forward by these people.

From all you write here, and my own reading of the New Testament it seems that there was a pretty good level of literacy among Jesus and at least a number of his disciples -and the lack of material goods was more by choice because they became itinerant preachers - and like many ministries today (like my friend Dave Armstrong!) they did rely on their friends for financial and living support. THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE THE REAL LIFE CHRISTIAN PATTERN - voluntarily giving up the comforts you could afford in order to do the dear Lord's work... and enabling others to do the Lord's work too by letting them support you.

As you rightly say, they paid their taxes, they gave alms to the poor, they kept a common purse (which Judas held) .. and there seems to have been some fishing going on during the 3 years - ie the story of the calming of the storm for instance - and Jesus sitting in a boat to teach the people on the shore - and Peter walking on the water outside the boat - and then, after the Crucifixion we see Peter going out to fish again (see John Chapter 21) ..so they may have given up their full time jobs in order to follow Jesus - but perhaps not 100%? Quite interesting.

A Collection of C.S. Lewis Quotations

The Apologist's Evening Prayer

From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seemed to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity,
Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.

Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle's eye,
Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.

(in Poems, edited by Walter Hooper, 1964)

To Dissenting Priests

It is your duty to to fix the lines (of doctrine) clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by
their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defense of those opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this simply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative Party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of the other.

("Christian Apologetics," Easter 1945; reprinted in God in the Dock, 89-90)

Providence

Our leisure, even our play, is a matter of serious concern. There is no neutral ground in the universe: every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counterclaimed by Satan.

(Christian Reflections, edited by Walter Hooper, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967 [1940], 33)

The Christian Apologist

Nothing is more dangerous to one's own faith than the work of an apologist. No doctrine of that Faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as one that I have just successfully defended in a public debate. For a moment, you see, it has seemed to rest on oneself: as a result, when you go away from that debate, it seems no stronger than that weak pillar. That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the Reality - from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself. That also is why we need one another's continual help -- oremus pro invincem [Let us pray for each other].

(God in the Dock, edited by Walter Hooper, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970 [1945], 103)

Medieval Man

At his most characteristic, medieval man was not a dreamer or a wanderer. He was an organiser, a codifier, a builder of systems. He wanted "a place for everything and everything in the right place". Distinction, definition, tabulation were his delight . . . Highly original and soaring philosophical speculation squeezes itself into a rigid dialectical pattern copied from Aristotle. Studies like Law and Moral Theology, which demand the ordering of very diverse particulars, especially flourish . . . There was nothing which medieval people liked better, or did better, than sorting out and tidying up . . . The perfect examples are the Summa of Aquinas and Dante's Divine Comedy; as unified and ordered as the Parthenon or the Oedipus Rex, as crowded and varied as a London terminus on a bank holiday.

(The Discarded Image, Cambridge University Press, 1964, 10)

The Incarnation

The Incarnation . . . illuminates and orders all other phenomena, explains both our laughter and our logic, our fear of the dead and our knowledge that it is somehow good to die, and which at one stroke covers what multitudes of separate theories will hardly cover for us if this is rejected.

(Miracles, New York: Macmillan, 1947, p. 131}@b

Moral Law and Christian Ethics

The idea . . . that Christianity brought a new ethical code into the world is a grave error. If it had done so, then we should have to conclude that all who first preached it wholly misunderstood their own message: for all of them, its Founder, His precursor, His apostles, came demanding repentance and offering forgiveness, a demand and an offer both meaningless except on the assumption of a moral law already known and already broken.

(Christian Reflections, edited by Walter Hooper, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967 [c.1942], 46, "On Ethics")

Contraception

As regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.

(The Abolition of Man, New York: Macmillan, 1947, 68-69)

Congregationalism

[Screwtape the Demon]: If a man can't be cured of churchgoing, the next best thing is to send him all over the neighborhood looking for the church that "suits" him until he becomes a taster or connoisseur of churches. The reasons are obvious. In the first place the parochial organisation should always be attacked, because, being a unity of place and not of likings, it brings people of different classes and psychology together in the kind of unity the Enemy desires. The congregational principle, on the other hand, makes each church into a kind of club, and finally, if all goes well, into a coterie or faction. In the second place, the search for a "suitable" church makes the man a critic where the Enemy wants him to be a pupil.

(The Screwtape Letters, New York: Macmillan, 1942, XVI, 72-73)

Divine Humility

It is . . . a poor thing to come to Him as a last resort, to offer up "our own" when it is no longer worth keeping. If God were proud He would hardly have us on such terms: but He is not proud, He stoops to conquer, He will have us even though we have shown that we prefer everything else to Him, and come to Him because there is "nothing better" now to be had. The same humility is shown by all those Divine appeals to our fears which trouble high-minded readers of scripture. It is hardly complimentary to God that we should choose Him as an alternative to Hell: yet even this He accepts. The creature's illusion of self-sufficiency must, for the creature's sake, be shattered; and by trouble or fear of trouble on earth, by crude fear of the eternal flames, God shatters it "unmindful of His glory's diminution." Those who would like the God of scripture to be more purely ethical, do not know what they ask.

If God were a Kantian, who would not have us till we came to Him from the purest and best motives, who could be saved? And this illusion of self-sufficiency may be at its strongest in some very honest, kindly, and temperate people, and on such people, therefore, misfortune must fall.

(The Problem of Pain, New York: Macmillan, 1940, 97-98)

Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom

The real inter-relation between God's omnipotence and Man's freedom is something we can't find out . . . We all do feel sure that all the good in us comes from Grace. I find the best plan is to take the Calvinist view of my own virtues and other people's vices; and the other view of my own vices and other people's virtues . . . It is plain from Scripture that, in whatever sense the Pauline doctrine is true, it is not true in any sense which excludes its (apparent) opposite.

(Letters of C.S. Lewis, edited by W.H. Lewis, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1966, [3 Aug 1953], 252)

Predestination to Hell

We may suspect that those who read it [Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion] with most approval were troubled by the fate of predestined vessels of wrath just about as much as young Marxists in our own age are troubled by the approaching liquidation of the bourgeoisie. Had the word "sentimentality" been known to them, Elizabethan Calvinists would certainly have used it of any who attacked the Institutio as morally repulsive.

(English Literature in the 16th Century, [vol. 3 of The Oxford History of English Literature], Oxford University Press, 1954, Introduction, 43)

Free Will

God has made it a rule for Himself that He won't alter people's character by force. He can and will alter them -- but only if people will let Him.

(God in the Dock, edited by Walter Hooper, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970, "The Trouble With 'X' . . ." [1948], 152-153)

Serious Conversation

[tongue in cheek] Talk, by all means; the more of it the better; unceasing cascades of the human voice; but not, please, a subject. The talk must not be about anything.

(The Four Loves, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1960, 109)

Gender and Sex

Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings.

(Perelandra, New York: Macmillan, 1943, 200)

Repentance and Action

[Screwtape the demon]: As long as he does not convert it into action, it does not matter how much he thinks about this new repentance . . . No amount of piety in his imagination and affections will harm us if we can keep it out of his will . . . The more often he feels without acting, the less he will be able ever to act, and, in the long run, the less he will be able to feel.

(The Screwtape Letters, New York: Macmillan, 1942, XIII, 60-61)

Shocking Bible Passages

The two things one must not do are (a) to believe on the strength of Scripture or on any other evidence that God is in any way evil (In Him is no darkness at all) (b) to wipe off the slate any passage which seems to show that He is. Behind the shocking passage be sure there lurks some great truth which you don't understand. If one ever does come to understand it, one sees that it is good and just and gracious in ways we never dreamed of. Till then it must just be left on one side . . . Would not a revelation which contained nothing that you and I did not understand, be for that very reason rather suspect? To a child it would seem a contradiction to say both that his parents made him and God made him, yet we see how both can be true.

(Letters of C.S. Lewis, edited by W.H. Lewis, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1966, [8 Aug 1953], 253)

Confessional Lutheran, Arminian, and Melanchthonian Soteriology Compared (Are Philip Melanchthon and Arminians Semi-Pelagians?)

Philip Melanchthon, painted by Lucas Cranach in 1543


From a public Internet discussion board dialogue, with a Missouri Synod Lutheran (his words will be in blue; and words of a person he cites will be in red). Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) was Martin Luther's associate for 28 years, and successor. After Luther's death some of Melanchthon's views on salvation were considered controversial and were opposed by Lutheran theologians like Martin Chemnitz, whose views prevailed in the confessional statement, Formula of Concord (1580).

* * * * *

Arminianism and Pelagianism (and/or semi-Pelagianism) are not the same, though they are commonly equated by Calvinists with an either/or mentality and a seeming inability to make the proper and relevant crucial distinctions. Lutheran Arminianism (rooted in the Lutheran confessions) is very similar to Catholic soteriology (which is precisely why agreements on these issues have been achieved in the ecumenical dialogue).

Catholics, like Lutherans, utterly reject the so-called "saving power" of men. Man can do nothing. This is Pelagianism. See my paper: A Primer on Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism. Catholics also believe in the predestination of the elect, but not of the reprobate -- again like confessional Lutheranism. See: Catholic Predestination (Ludwig Ott).

The Lutheran Formula of Concord rejects predestination of the reprobate or damned and asserts universal atonement:

PART I: EPITOME:

XI. GOD'S ETERNAL FOREKNOWLEDGE AND ELECTION

AFFIRMATIVE: Pure and True Doctrine concerning this Article.

2. . . . This foreknowledge is not a cause of evil or of sin which compels anyone to do something wrong; the original source of this is the devil and man's wicked and perverse will. Neither is it the cause of man's perdition; for this man himself is responsible . . .

4. Predestination or the eternal election of God, however, is concerned only with the pious children of God in whom he is well pleased . . .

11. The passage, "Many are called, but few are chosen," does not mean that God does not desire to save everyone . . . The fault does not lie in God or his election, but in their own wickedness.

ANTHITHESES: False Doctrine concerning this Article

1. The doctrine that God does not want all men to come to repentance and to believe the Gospel.

3. Furthermore, that God does not want everybody to be saved, but that merely by an arbitrary counsel, purpose, and will, without regard for their sin, God has predestined certain people to damnation so that they cannot be saved.

. . . These are all blasphemous and terrible errors, for they rob Christians of all the comfort that they have in the holy Gospel and in the use of the holy sacraments. Hence they should not be tolerated in God's church.

PART II: SOLID DECLARATION

XI. ETERNAL FOREKNOWLEDGE AND DIVINE ELECTION

. . . the eternal election of God or God's predestination to salvation does not extend over both the godly and the ungodly, but only over the children of God, who have been elected and predestined to eternal life . . .

The reason why all who hear the Word do not come to faith and therefore receive the greater damnation is not that God did not want them to be saved . . .

Hence Paul very carefully distinguishes between the work of God, who alone prepares vessels of honor, and the work of the devil and of man, who, through the instigation of the devil and not of God, has made himself a vessel of dishonor . . . The apostle says in unmistakable terms that God "endured the vessels of wrath with much patience" [Rom 9:22-23]. He does not say that God made them vessels of wrath . . . Everything which prepares and fits man for damnation emanates from the devil and man through sin, and in no way from God. Since God does not want any man to be damned, how could he prepare man for damnation? God is not the cause of sin, nor is he the cause of the punishment, the damnation . . . He does not will that "any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (II Pet 3:9).

PART II: SOLID DECLARATION

IV. GOOD WORKS

. . . we must begin by earnestly criticizing and rejecting the false Epicurean delusion which some dream up that it is impossible to lose faith and the gift of righteousness and salvation, once it has been received, through any sin, even a wanton and deliberate one, or through wicked works; and that even though a Christian follows his evil lusts without fear and shame, resists the Holy Spirit, and deliberately proceeds to sin against his conscience, he can nevertheless retain faith, the grace of God, righteousness, and salvation . . .

[goes on to cite 1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:21, Eph 5:5, Rom 8:113, Col 3:6]

(From: The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert, in collaboration with Jaroslav Pelikan, Robert H. Fischer, & Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, 494-497, 617, 629, 556)

According to Mead's Handbook of Denominations, the Missouri Synod Lutherans accept the Formula of Concord (among other works) as a standard of orthodoxy and doctrine.

Contrast this view with that of John Calvin:

. . . whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? . . . The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because HE SO ORDAINED BY HIS DECREE . . . God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also METED IT OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS OWN DECISION.

(Institutes of the Christian Religion, III, 23, 7, McNeill / Battles edition, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960, v. 2, 955-956; emphasis added)

Alister McGrath -- certainly no enemy of Calvin (he published a biography of him in 1990) -- writes:

Predestination, for Augustine, refers only to the divine decision to redeem, not to the act of abandoning the remainder of fallen humanity.

For Calvin, logical rigour demands that God actively chooses to redeem or to damn. God cannot be thought of as doing something by default: he is active and sovereign in his actions. Therefore God actively wills the salvation of those who will be saved and the damnation of those who will not.

. . . Salvation thus lies outside the control of the individual, who is powerless to alter the situation.

(Reformation Thought, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993, 125, 127)

John Calvin:

As God by the effectual working of his call to the elect perfects the salvation to which by his eternal plan he has destined them, so he has his judgments against the reprobate, by which he executes his plan for them. What of those, then, whom he created for dishonor in life and destruction in death, to become the instruments of his wrath and examples of his severity? . . .

The supreme Judge, then, makes way for his predestination when he leaves in blindness those whom he has once condemned and deprived of participation in his light.

(Institutes, III, 24, 12, vol. 2, 978-979)

For an in-depth discussion of Calvin and predestination, see: Calvin, Supralapsarianism, and God's Sovereignty. For related Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, see:

Lutheranism vs. Catholicism (Particularly Regarding Original Sin and Faith Alone, and Including Extensive Catholic Commentary on the Book of Concord)

Rick Ritchie, a contributing author to Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), is a graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.

A Lutheran Response to Arminianism
The issues involved concern more than Calvinists

By Rick Ritchie

. . . If a five-point summary is an awkward way to present Calvinism, it is downright foreign to Lutheranism. This is not because Lutheranism lacks a defined doctrine of election. (It certainly has one.) God's gracious election of certain individuals to salvation was affirmed in Article X of the Formula of Concord, the last of the Lutheran confessions. The darker side of predestination has also been considered. As the great Lutheran theologian Hermann Sasse wrote, Lutheran theology knows about the God of Predestination: This God who makes us responsible for demands which we cannot fulfill, who asks us questions which we cannot answer, who created us for good and yet leaves us no other choice than to do evil--this is the Deus absconditus. This is the God of absolute Predestination. This is the God who hardened Pharaoh's heart, who hated Esau even before he was born, the Potter who fashions pots and before whom one shrinks-and who, nevertheless, thunders in pitiless sovereignty at these unhappy creatures, 'Tua culpa!' Thine is the guilt!

But this is not the view expressed in the Formula of Concord, as I have shown. Double predestination is expressly denied.

Arminian Principles Rejected

The best way to compare two theological positions is to compare their underlying principles. According to J.I. Packer, the theological position of the Remonstrants came from two philosophical principles:

first, that divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility; second, that ability limits obligation. (The charge of semi-Pelagianism was thus fully justified.) From these principles, the Arminians drew two deductions: first, that since the Bible regards faith as a free and responsible human act, it cannot be caused by God, but is exercised independently of Him; second, that since the Bible regards faith as obligatory on the part of all who hear the gospel, ability to believe must be universal.

But this is simply incorrect (and inexcusably so) as to what Arminians believe. And one need only go to the famous Remonstrance (1610, a codification of the teachings of Jacob Arminius --1559-1609). of the Arminians to see that it is a false portrayal. Here are the 3rd and 4th articles of five (emphasis added):

III.That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his own free-will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself and by himself think nothing that is good--nothing, that is, truly good, such as saving faith is, above all else. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through his Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding, affections and will and in all his faculties, that he may be able to understand, think, will, and perform what is truly good, according to the Word of God [John 15:5].

IV.That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient), awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit [Acts 7 and elsewhere passim].

Nor does Philip Melanchthon hold the views attributed to him (semi-Pelagianism or something akin to it):

. . . through the powers of nature all men are truly and always sinners and they commit sins [goes on to cite Gen 6:5, 8:21, Is 9:17, 41:29, 53:6, Ps 14] . . .

What will you say to this, hypocritical theologians? What works of free will (arbitrium) will you preach to us, and what power of man? Do you imagine that you are not denying original sin when you teach that a man is able to do something good in his own strength? A bad tree cannot bvring forth good fruit, can it? . . .

I hope you are definitely convinced that nothing good nor meritorious can be done by men through the power of nature, since Scripture certainly says that every imagination of the thoughts of the human heart is vain and depraved (Gen 6:5) . . .

Now, Paul in nearly all his letters, but especially in Romans and Galatians, does hardly anything but teach that all works and all efforts of human power are sins or vices (peccata or vitia) . . .

For the same reason they have inverted free will (arbitrium), for they have seen that in certain spheres of external works there is a kind of freedom. For thus the flesh judges external works, On the contrary, the Spirit teaches that all things come to pass necessarily according to predestination . . .

Therefore, when justification is attributed to faith, it is attributed to the mercy of God; it is taken out of the realm of human effort, works, and merits.

(Loci Communes Theologici, 1521 edition translated by Lowell J. Satre, with revisions by Wilhelm Pauck, in Melanchthon and Bucer, edited by Wilhelm Pauck, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969; "The Power of Man, Especially Free Will" / "Sin" / "The Power and Fruit of Sin" / "Justification and Faith"; 34-37, 48, 106)

Views similar to these can be found throughout the Augsburg Confession, which Melanchthon wrote. Compare the soteriology and anti-Pelagianism of the Council of Trent:

Chapter V, Decree on Justification:

. . . Man . . . is not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.

Canon I on Justification:

If anyone saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

[as opposed to the twisted caricature of Catholic soteriology presented in the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord: II. Free Will, or Human Powers: ". . . the error of the Papists and scholastics, who have proceeded in a somewhat more subtile manner, and have taught that man from his own natural powers can make a beginning of doing good and of his own conversion, and that then the Holy Ghost, because man is too weak to bring it to completion, comes to the aid of the good begun from a person's own natural powers."]

The two positions of Lutheranism and Arminianism are clearly different at each point, even where there are some similarities. The guiding motif in Arminianism is the free will of man, but in Lutheranism this is rejected. God is the main actor in Lutheranism.

This surely appears not to be the case, in light of Articles III and IV of the Remonstrance, above.

What was more insidious was that some theologians saw faith to be a human contribution to salvation. It was not a work of God the Holy Spirit who brought a person to faith through the message of the Gospel, but a work of man--man's small contribution to his salvation. This resembled the Arminian argument that God had lowered the cost of salvation to bargain-basement prices; instead of keeping the law, now God just required faith. This type of faith was no faith at all. It was a hindrance to faith!

But this is a distortion of the Arminian and Melanchthonian positions, as shown.

This matter had come up in the Lutheran church more than once before. Philip Melanchthon, Luther's co-reformer and one of the authors of the Lutheran confessions, had in his later career said that there were three causes of election, man's non-resistance to grace being one. Later theologians sometimes fell into speaking of conversion being the result of "new powers imparted by grace," or "right conduct over against grace." This always turned out to be the grossest form of moralism. The "faith" that is required bears an uncanny resemblance to works. In each case the sinner is thrown back onto himself for deliverance.

A person's stand on unconditional election is indicative of his true adherence to salvation by grace alone through faith alone. If non-resistance or right conduct become the grounds of election, you can bet that the "faith alone" which is being talked about is not faith at all, but a work of man.

Not necessarily, if one takes a Molinist position, whereby God elects as a result of His middle knowledge (scientia media) whereby He has the knowledge -- as a function of His omniscience -- which includes conditional and theoretical or hypothetical knowledge as well. In this view, human "non-resistance or right conduct" is still entirely a result of God's grace and not man's natural powers; therefore, God is still electing and granting grace as He wills. It is neither Pelagianism nor Semi-Pelagianism because man can do nothing to contribute to his own salvation. God does all.

Credit may be given to God after the fact for giving us this power, but who could see in this type of faith the empty hand of which the reformers spoke?

This is precisely the unnecessary false dichotomy. Men are not robots. We cooperate with the grace only God can grant.

A new power from God may sound like a gracious gift, but beware! If the new power is the ability to save oneself by following the right principles, it is best left unwrapped.

But it is not "saving oneself"! This is the whole point. God is saving and man is merely cooperating, much like a prisoner cooperates with a pardon from the governor. He didn't pardon himself. But if he refuses to cooperate and walk out the door of the jail, the pardon will be of none effect.

The Missouri-Synod theologians were very careful to ensure that gifts remained gifts and good news remained good news. If we wish to do the same, we had better guard our doctrine of unconditional election.

Good for them. Catholics agree with unconditional election of the righteous saved.

If you want to discover just how pervasive Arminian principles are, just check to see how many clear biblical passages you have been systematically taught to misinterpret. How many times has the verse "Behold I stand at the door and knock..." (Rev. 3:20) been taken to be Christ standing at the door of our hearts asking us if we will let him save us, when it is Christ standing at the door to the church in Laodicea? How often have we heard that "God has voted for us, Satan has voted against us, and we cast the deciding vote" when Romans 8:31 teaches that if God is for us who can be against us? We are told to make a decision for Christ, but we say that we do not want to be bothered with hearing about what he has decided about us.

But again, this is a distortion and caricature of the actual theological position of Arminianism. As always, one cannot do theology by consulting the man on the street or old ladies in purple tennis shoes at some storefront church in Podunk. Theological systems must be compared by recourse to their founders or best exponents.

The old Adamic nature loves itself above God and wants to be captain of its own destiny.

So the straw men and quixotic battles continue on. It is implied that this is what Arminianism teaches. It's amazing how people continue to insist on distorting views which they do not hold. One doesn't have to adhere to a viewpoint in order to simply understand it and present it accurately.

Lutherans reject cooperative grace views hence they do not fit under Arminian label.

That depends on what you mean by "cooperative grace."

. . . the article did NOT affirm double predestination. Just because it cited the one passage Calvinists used to "prove" double predestination does NOT mean it affirmed double predestination.

The article alluded to such things as:

The darker side of predestination" and "Lutheran theology knows about the God of Predestination: This God who makes us responsible for demands which we cannot fulfill . . . the Deus absconditus . . . the God who hardened Pharaoh's heart, who hated Esau even before he was born, the Potter who fashions pots and before whom one shrinks-and who, nevertheless, thunders in pitiless sovereignty at these unhappy creatures, 'Tua culpa!' Thine is the guilt!"

And as to your "robot" charge for denial of Arminianism, that proves my point. Since you ascribe "robotic" charges to those who hold differently from any form of Arminianism, what does that say about the book of Concord which denies even the smallest amount of cooperation?

That comment leads into a huge discussion on free will and God's sovereignty. I'm not interested in doing that discussion; only in pointing out how Arminians (and perhaps Melanchthonians) are being misrepresented -- and Catholics insofar as their views are virtually identical with Arminians and/or Lutherans.

You should read the book of Concord instead of prooftexting to make it agree with Arminians on cooperation for conversion.

I have not argued that Lutherans believe we "cooperate" in our conversion. I have argued the exact opposite: that neither confessional Lutherans nor Arminians nor (at least the early) Melanchthon nor Catholics believe this is possible, and that it is a Pelagian view and a denial of original sin, which all of these camps alike reject and deny. This is where I think your confusion lies. It's a very common error.

And the article does not say Melanchthon was Pelagian. He was close to semi-Pelagian in terms of almost making faith as cause of election LATER IN LIFE.

Your earlier statement (in a post you provided a link for) was:

Melanchthon and his followers hold to our faith as the cause of election.

The article did NOT say Melanchthon held to semi-Pelagianism EARLY IN LIFE, but quite the OPPOSITE.

It says:

. . . some theologians saw faith to be a human contribution to salvation. It was not a work of God the Holy Spirit who brought a person to faith through the message of the Gospel, but a work of man--man's small contribution to his salvation . . . Melanchthon, Luther's co-reformer and one of the authors of the Lutheran confessions, had in his later career said that there were three causes of election, man's non-resistance to grace being one . . . In each case the sinner is thrown back onto himself for deliverance . . . If non-resistance or right conduct become the grounds of election, you can bet that the "faith alone" which is being talked about is not faith at all, but a work of man.

This is describing Pelagianism, and the writer associates Melanchthon with that view. Arminians do not hold such a view (nor do Catholics), as I have shown from the Remonstrance and Trent. I think there is a confusion of category in your arguments and the author's. I don't think Arminianism and Pelagianism are being defined properly.

I also deny that "non-resistance" is the equivalent of "cause." I dealt with this in my analogy of the prisoner who is pardoned. He doesn't cause his pardon. But it won't take effect if he refuses to leave the prison. Likewise, we don't cause our salvation or first steps to salvation. But we can resist God's grace which alone causes this. In other words, this is simply a denial of the Calvinist irresistible grace. Men can refuse the grace which alone saves them. To not resist this grace is not a "cause" of regeneration or justification. It is merely allowing the sole cause: God's grace, to take effect, by not obstructing it.

To give another example: if we tore down a dam that was holding a huge body of water back, we don't say that this "caused" the water to flow downstream. What caused that was the law of gravity and the laws of physics concerning the behavior of water molecules under particular circumstances. It's the same with God's grace and our resistance. If we remove a roadblock from a road, we don't describe the resulting traffic as "caused" by the removal of the roadblock. Etc., etc. So non-resistance is not properly labelled "semi-Pelagian."

If this was all the later Melanchthon taught, then he was not a semi-Pelagian, in the right definition of that word and heresy. But my primary concern in this disussion is not Tridentine soteriology, but Arminian and Melanchthonian. I think I have pointed out some factual errors in your presentation. I would like to learn from you as well: more about internal Lutheran disputes.

Now be good enough to apologize for YOUR caricatures of "robots" and making Concord into agreement with Arminianism on cooperation and synergism.

I see no need for apologizing for the "robot" thing. It was simply a passing comment. As already stated, I did not argue that either Concord or Arminians believe in initial cooperation in salvation. Neither does. As for synergism, that can be defined variously as well. The type I believe in as a Catholic is that which is mentioned in the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration Article II: Free Will or Human Powers:

. . . the power and operation of the Holy Spirit, who through the Word preached and heard illuminates and converts hearts so that men believe this Word and give their assent to it . . .

But after a man is converted, and thereby enlightened, and his will is renewed, then he wills that which is good, in so far as he is reborn or a new man, and he delights in the law of God according to his inmost self (Rom 7:22) . . .

From this it follows that as soon as the Holy Spirit has initiated his work of regeneration and renewal in us through the Word and the holy sacraments, it is certain that we can and must cooperate by the power of the Holy Spirit, even though we still do so in great weakness. Such cooperation does not proceed from pour carnal and natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Spirit has begun in us in conversion, as St. Paul expressly and earnestly reminds us, "Working together with him, then, we entreat you to not accept the grace of God in vain" [2 Cor 6:1]. This is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good, as much and as long as God rules him through his Holy Spirit, guides and leads him, but if God should withdraw his gracious hand man could not remain in obedience to God for one moment. But if this were to be understood as though the converted man cooperates alongside the Holy Spirit, the way two horses draw a wagon together, such a view could by no means be conceded without detriment to the divine truth.

(Ibid., 531-534)

This is good Arminian and good Catholic Tridentine theology! Catholics don't disagree with a word of this. For example:

CANON XXII on Justification.-If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.

I would like to see you define, and compare and contrast Pelagianism and Arminianism, so I can see what definitions you are utilizing. I think you are confused, from what I have seen.

Lutherans reject cooperation of man in salvation in any MIMIMAL way.

So do Arminians and Catholics. This is not at issue. You have not shown me that they believe any other. I would love to see the documentation.

As to your quotes from book of Concord, the quote did not say synergism takes place at conversion.

Yes, we hold to grace is universal and RESISTIBLE.

I distanced myself (as well as book of Concord Lutherans) from Melanchthon on the basis of his SEMI-Pelagian type sounding views, NOT Pelagianism.

Pelagianism means man has no original sin and was born innocent since Adam fell.

Semi-Pelagianism means man has something in him despite being fallen, by which he can [respond] when God shows grace to him.

Arminianism is like that but slightly different. Arminianism means, at least in the classical sense, [that] man is depraved from fall and cannot turn to God on his own, but with grace can make choice for or against God of his own freewill.

. . . Nothing in man whatsover before and even when grace is given is involved to turn himself to Christ. God does all that. You would see my views of conversion as ROBOTIC, too.

I need much more documentation from Melanchthon's own words in order to properly conclude whether he was an Arminian or a semi-Pelagian (my guess would be the former, which was then misunderstood by his critics, just as Arminius and the Catholic position habitually were and are misunderstood). I have not seen nearly enough yet to come to any conclusion. Much more context is needed to see how he would deal with the relationship of God's grace to man's actions, original sin, etc.

I then proceeded to do more research on the "later" Melanchthon's views:

From: Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: Loci communes 1555, translated and edited by Clyde L. Manschreck, Oxford University Press, 1965; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1982 (the only English translation of the final revision of the Loci communes):

Preface (Clyde L. Manschreck: pp. vii-viii, xii-xiv):

Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) . . . is accused of weakening the evangelical stand at Augsburg in 1530 by his compromising negotiations with the Roman Catholic contingent; and he appeared to be theologically subversive by changing successive editions of the Augsburg Confession. Differences between the early and the lateLoci caused some contemporaries and later researchers to say that Melanchthon drifted away from the evangelical foundations established by Luther. When he sought to explain that the human will is not a stone and at least has to accept whatever is wrought by the word and the Spirit in conversion, he was labeled a synergist.

. . . he did alter his thought on several controversial points of theology and seemed to veer away from Luther . . .

In 1521, in the first Loci, he asserted that God controls everything through the mystery of divine predestination, but he sidestepped a discussion of it on the grounds that man should not be overly curious about God's mysteries. After 1527 and when he wrote the last editions of the Loci, he rejected the idea that "God snatches you by some violent rapture, so that you must believe, whether you will or not" . . . Two things bothered Melanchthon. First, he could not accept "stoical fatalism," or determinism . . . He could not find determinism in Scripture, nor could he tolerate the idea inherent in determinism that God is responsible for man's sin. Second, predetermined election seemed to undercut the Biblical message of salvation for all men. Also, a divinely forced justification would mean that man participated no more than a stone; he felt that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting the promises of God and that God does not force salvation upon a man as if he were inanimate.

. . . In his Commentary on Romans, 1532, Melanchthon assrted that in justification "there is some cause in the recipient in that he does not reject the promise extended." Melanchthon was trying to assess the individuality and responsibility of man; he was not claiming that man is the author of justification. The fact that man preaches the word and calls upon man to repent implies that the hearer does something . . . the Holy Spirit and the word are first active in conversion, but the will of man is not wholly inactive; God draws, but draws him who is willing, for man is not a statue . . . Melanchthon expressed this position in the 1535 Loci, and berated those people who refused to try to live morally on the grounds that, no matter what they did, they were either elected or not . . .

Melanchthon could not accept a secret decree in God that inexorably meant some were saved and others damned . . . In 1558 he declared that "Stoic necessity is a downright lie and a reproach to God," . . . and that man is not a synergistic co-worker with God in conversion, nor does God force a man to accept grace . . . Similar thought appeared in the 1544-45 Loci, which Luther knew about and to which he did not object.

Introduction (Hans Engelland: pp. xxxvii-xl):

He made several statements which, though misunderstood, in any case occasioned the suspicion of synergism, especially in his assertion of the three causes concurrently working together -- the word of God, the Holy Spirit, and the will of man, which agrees with and does not resist the word of God. Yes, . . . the will is free in its ability to conform to grace . . . "that is, it hears the promise and tries to agree and to end its deliberate sinning against conscience." However, Melanchthon is speaking in the first assertion about the three causes which concurrently work together, not of a natural will but of a will that agrees, and he is thinking in the second of one who is already reborn, as a conversation recorded by Jacob Runge shows. Many similar remarks corroborate this. "Trust and joy in the heart are the immediate works of the Holy Spirit." The will is active in conversion "in so far as God has healed it" . . . Any nonresistance of the will results from the inducement of the Holy Spirit. Yes, God works during and after the conversion, and so the will is not active; it remains purely passive . . . "God effects much wonderful enlightenment and activity in conversion and throughout the lives of saints, which the human will only accepts, in which it is not a co-worker but holds its own passively . . . "

These and similar assertions make it appear questionable that Melanchthon really advocates a form of synergism when he speaks of the activity of the will. The assertions in which he speaks unqualifiedly and mistakenly are to be understood in accordance with the context in which he stood . . . he energetically rejects the misunderstanding that the Holy Spirit deals with man as with a statue, a piece of wood, or a stone . . . faith in one dimension appears to be the decision of the Holy Spirit, and in the other dimension, the decision of man. But in Melanchthon's speeches about the activity of man still another motive appears. Many assertions have a pastoral character; he intends them to help in time of despondency and resignation, to assist in a resolution unto faith. "I cannot, you say. On the contrary, you can, in a certain manner. When the voice of the gospel rises in you, then ask God for help and comfort yourself that the Holy Spirit is active in this, that in this way God wants to convert. In view of his promises we should make an effort, call on him, and struggle against our mistrust and other destructive emotions."

A second question is whether Melanchthon later gave up the unity of justification and sanctification, which he originally taught when he joined Luther, thereby separating regeneratio from iustificatio itself as a mere imputatio of the aliena iustitia Christi, as mere forgiveness of sins . . . That basically he did not separate sanctification from justification is plain from the manner in which he speaks of Christ's mission . . .

. . . The new obedience must begin "because we are justified and our sins are annulled, and with that the new and eternal life actually begins in us, which is a new light and obedience toward God." However, sanctification is not only the goal of justification but also its content. "Justification itself always brings new life and obedience with it," and "the beginning of renewal always happens at the same time as justification." Those who believe in the gospel "are justified, that is, through the Son and for the sake of the Son are received in faith and through him by virtue of the Holy Spirit are sanctified to eternal life" . . .

Melanchthon, therefore, stands theologically nearer to Luther than the traditional view indicates. The important theological deficiencies of the time following Melanchthon are more the responsibility of students who fragmented what he had fused.

Philip Melanchthon: Loci communes, final 1555 edition:

Of Human Strength and Free Will, pp. 57-61, 63, 65-66:

No man by his natural power can take away death and the inborn evil tendency of his nature. Only the Son of God can do this . . . Man has no power to accomplish this. Further, it is also certainly true that no man can merit forgiveness of sins, as is clearly indicated in Titus 3:5, "Not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, he saved us."

. . . we still do not have enough power to keep God's law; we cannot begin inward obedience in our hearts without divine help and without the Holy Spirit.

We should be warned and with great earnestness repudiate the lies and blasphemy of Pelagius, who taught that man in his own natural strength can fulfill the law, merit forgiveness of sins, be righteous before God, and merit eternal life.

Without this activity of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, there is no true faith and comfort and love to God.

We should not think that a man is a piece of wood or a stone, but as we hear the word of God, in which punishment and comfort are put forth, we should neither despise nor resist it.

Chrysostom says that God draws man. However, he draws the one who is willing, not the one who resists.

[sources in footnote: Homilies on St. John, 5 (St. John 1:3-5), 10 (St. John 1:11-13), 45 (St. John 6:28-40), 46 (St. John 6:41-53); Homilies on First Corinthians, 2 (1 Cor. 1:4-5).]

And Basil says that God comes first toward us, but nevertheless that we should also will that he come to us.

In those who have turned to God regeneration has begun, and after that heart and will are active. The Holy Spirit is not a lazy being; he kindles light and fire in the soul and heart in such a manner tat the soul and heart also possess a better knowledge of God and an initial love and longing for him . . .

. . . divine grace and help move men to good works, but nevertheless so that the will follows and does not resist.

. . . we should not extend this passage [Ecclesiasticus 15:14], as the Pelagians and monks do, to mean that man can fulfill God's law by their own natural powers, without divine activity within. The Pelagian meaning is contrary to the whole of divine teaching . . .

. . . all sayings about the obedience which is pleasing to God must include the grace of Christ.

. . . Pelagius and similar Pharisaical teachers . . . who have spoken in the same heathenish way, saying that we can entirely keep God's law in our hearts and in exsternal works, without the aid of the Holy Spirit. In other words, they are saying that man can merit forgiveness of sins with such works. These lies and blasphemies should be known, condemned, and execrated.

Thus it is seen that Philip Melanchthon (even in "later years") is no semi-Pelagian. His soteriology is, rather, Arminian.

I conclude the following four things:

1. I don't see how the Formula of Concord and Melanchthon's views in Loci (1555) are all that different. I think it is mostly a discussion of semantics concerning one of the most difficult things for anyone to understand (free will and God's sovereignty).

2. To the extent that they are different at all, I think Melanchthon's views (on predestination and election) are superior to those of Concord.

3. I see both views as slightly different brands of Arminianism.

4. Melanchthon's views are not semi-Pelagian. To think that they are is an exercise, I think, of "either/or" thinking, which does not adequately take into consideration biblical paradox and divine mysteries.

From: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ArminianOpinions.htm

The following is one of two documents held by the Remonstrants (Arminians) as a statement of their faith in response to "reformed" teaching. This document has been condemned as heresy by the reformed churches at the Synod of Dordt, 1618-1619.

The Remonstrant Opinions

Only with difficulty did the Synod obtain from the Remonstrants, who had been charged by the political authorities to appear before the synod, a statement of their convictions on the points in dispute. After appearing a day later than scheduled and holding conferences among themselves, they presented their opinions on the first article at the 31st session, on December 13, and on the other articles at the 34th session, on December 17. The Sententiae are essential to a proper understanding and evaluation of the Canons, since at many points the latter are so phrased as to show clearly wherein the synod was convinced that the Remonstrants erred.

The Latin Edition of this material can be found in Acta Synodi Nationalis, pp. 113, 116-118; in Bakhuizen vanden Brink: De Nederlandsche Belijdenisgesschriften, pp. 283-288; and the Dutch edition in Acta ofte Handelinghen des Nationalen Synodi (ed. Canin, 1621), pp. 138-139; 152-158. For the translation provided here we are indebted to Dr. Anthony A. Hoekema, professor of Systematic Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary.

A. The Opinion of the Remonstrants regarding the first article, dealing with the decree of Predestination.

1. God has not decided to elect anyone to eternal life, or to reject anyone from the same, prior to the decree to create him, without any consideration of preceding obedience or disobedience, according to His good pleasure, for the demonstration of the glory of His mercy and justice, or of His absolute power and dominion.

2. Since the decree of God concerning both the salvation and perdition of each man is not a decree of the end absolutely intended, it follows that neither are such means subordinated to that same decree by which the elect and the reprobate are efficaciously and inevitably led to their final destination.

3. Therefore God has not with this plan created in the one Adam all men in a state of rectitude, has not ordained the fall and the permission of it, has not withdrawn from Adam the grace which was necessary and sufficient, has not brought it about that the Gospel is preached and that men are externally called, does not confer on them any gifts of the Holy Spirit by means of which he leads some of them to life, but deprives others of the benefit of life, Christ, the Mediator, I not solely the executor of election, but also the foundation of that same decree of election: the reason why some are efficaciously called, justified, persevere in faith, and are glorified is not that they have been absolutely elected to eternal life. That others are left in the fall, that Christ is not given to them, that they are either not called at all or not efficaciously called � these are not the reasons why they are absolutely rejected from eternal salvation.

4. God has not decreed to leave the greatest part of men in the fall, excluded from every hope of salvation, apart from intervening actual sins.

5. God has ordained that Christ should be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and by virtue of that decree He has determined to justify and to save those who believe in Him, and to provide for men means necessary and sufficient for faith in such a way as He knows to be in harmony with His wisdom and justice. But He has by no means determined, by virtue of an absolute decree, to give Christ the Mediator solely to the elect, and through an efficacious calling to bestow faith upon, justify, preserve in the faith and glorify them alone.

6. No one is rejected from life nor from the means sufficient for it by an absolute antecedent decree,, so that the merit of Christ, calling, and all the gifts of the Spirit can be profitable to salvation for all, and truly are, unless they themselves by the abuse of these gifts pervert them to their own perdition; but to unbelief, to impiety, and to sins, a means and causes of damnation, no one is predestined.

7. The election of particular persons is decisive, out of consideration of faith in Jesus Christ and of perseverance; not, however, apart from a consideration of faith and perseverance in the true faith, as a condition prerequisite for electing.

8. Rejection from eternal life is made on the basis of a consideration of antecedent unbelief and perseverance in unbelief; not, however, apart from a consideration of antecedent unbelief and perseverance in unbelief.

9. All the children of believers are sanctified in Christ, so that no one of them who leaves this life before the use of reason will perish. By no means, however, are to be considered among the number of the reprobate certain children of believers who leave this life in infancy before they have committed any actual sin in their own persons, so that neither the holy bath of baptism nor the prayers of the church for them in any way be profitable for their salvation.

10. No children of believers who have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, living in the state of infancy, are reckoned among the reprobate by an absolute decree.

B. The Opinion of the Remonstrants regarding the second article, which deals with the universality of the merit of the death of Christ.

The price of redemption which Christ offered to God the Father is not only in itself and by itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race but has also been paid for all men and for every man, according to the decree, will, and the grace of God the Father; therefore no one is absolutely excluded from participation in the fruits of Christ�s death by an absolute and antecedent decree of God.
Christ has, by the merit of his death, so reconciled God the Father to the whole human race that the Father, on account of that merit, without giving up His righteousness and truth, has been able and has willed to make and confirm a new covenant of grace with sinners and men liable to damnation.

Though Christ has merited reconciliation with God and remission of sins for all men and for every man, yet no one, according to the pact of the new and gracious covenant, becomes a true partaker of the benefits obtained by the death of Christ in any other way than by faith; nor are sins forgiven to sinning men before they actually and truly believe in Christ.

Only those are obliged to believe that Christ died for them for whom Christ has died. The reprobates, however, as they are called, for whom Christ has not died, ore not obligated to such faith, nor can they be justly condemned on account of the contrary refusal to believe this. In fact, if there should be such reprobates, they would be obliged to believe that Christ has not died for them.

C. The Opinion of the Remonstrants regarding the third and fourth articles, concerning the grace of God and the conversion of man.

Man does not have saving faith of himself, nor out of the powers of his free will, since in the state of sin he is able of himself and by himself neither to think, will, or do any good (which would indeed to be saving good, the most prominent of which is saving faith). It is necessary therefore that by God in Christ through His Holy Spirit he be regenerated and renewed in intellect, affections, will, and in all his powers, so that he might be able to understand, reflect upon, will and carry out the good things which pertain to salvation.

We hold, however, that the grace of God is not only the beginning but also the progression and the completion of every good, so much so that even the regenerate himself is unable to think, will, or do the good, or to resist any temptations to evil, apart from that preceding or prevenient, awakening, following and cooperating grace. Hence all good works and actions which anyone by cogitation is able to comprehend are to be ascribed to the grace of God.

Yet we do not believe that all zeal, care, and diligence applied to the obtaining of salvation before faith itself and the Spirit of renewal are vain and ineffectual � indeed, rather harmful to man than useful and fruitful. On the contrary, we hold that to hear the Word of God, to be sorry for sins committed, to desire saving grace and the Spirit of renewal (none of which things man is able to do without grace) are not only not harmful and useless, but rather most useful and most necessary for the obtaining of faith and of the Spirit of renewal.

The will in the fallen state, before calling, does not have the power and the freedom to will any saving good. And therefore we deny that the freedom to will saving good as well as evil is present to the will in every state.

The efficacious grace by which anyone is converted is not irresistible; and though God so influences the will by the word and the internal operation of His Spirit that he both confers the strength to believe or supernatural powers, and actually causes man to believe � yet man is able of himself to despise that grace and not to believe, and therefore to perish through his own fault.

Although according to the most free will of God the disparity of divine grace is very great, nevertheless, the Holy Spirit confers, or is ready to confer, as much grace to all men and to each man to whom the Word of God is preached as is sufficient for promoting the conversion of men in its steps. Therefore sufficient grace for faith and conversion falls to the lot not only of those whom God is said to will to save according to the decree of absolute election, but also of those who are not actually converted.

Man is able through the grace of the Holy Spirit to do more good than he actually does, and to avoid more evil than he actually avoids; and we do not believe that God simply does not will that man should do more good than he does and avoid more evil than he does avoid, and that God has decreed precisely from eternity that both should so happen.

Whomever God calls to salvation, he calls seriously, that is, with a sincere and completely unhypocritical intention and will to save; nor do we assent to the opinion of those who hold that God calls certain ones externally whom He does not will to call internally, that is, as truly converted, even before the grace of calling has been rejected.

There is not in God a secret will which so contradicts the will of the same revealed in the Word that according to it (that is, the secret will) He does not will the conversion and salvation of the greatest part of those whom He seriously calls and invites by the Word of the Gospel and by His revealed will; and we do not here, as some say, acknowledge in God a holy simulation, or a double person.

Nor do we believe that God calls the reprobate, as they are called, to these ends: that He should the more harden them, or take away excuse, or punish them the more severely, or display their inability; nor, however, that they should be converted, should believe, and should be saved.

It is not true that all things, not only good but also bad, necessarily occur, from the power and efficacy of the secret will or decree of God, and that indeed those who sin, out of consideration of the decree of God, are not able to sin; that God wills to determine and to bring about the sins of men, their insane, foolish, and cruel works, and the sacrilegious blasphemy of His name � in fact, to move the tongues of men to blasphemy, and so on.

To us the following is false and horrible: that God impels men to sins which He openly prohibits; that those who sin do not act contrary to the will of God properly named; that what is unrighteous (that is, what is contrary to the will of God properly named; that what is unrighteous (that is, what is contrary to His precept) is in agreement with the will of God; indeed, that it is truly a capital crime to do the will of God.

D. The Opinion of the Remonstrants with respect to the fifth article, which concerns Perseverance.

The perseverance of believers in the faith is not an effect of the absolute decree by which God is said to have chosen singular persons defined by no condition of obedience.

God provides true believers with as much grace and supernatural powers as He judges, according to His infinite wisdom, to be sufficient for persevering and for overcoming the temptations of the devil, the flesh, and the world; it is never charged to God�s account that they do not persevere.

True believers call fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently.

True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish. Nevertheless we do not believe that true believers, though they may sometimes fall into grave sins which are vexing to their consciences, immediately fall out of every hope of repentance; but we acknowledge that it can happen that God, according to the multitude of His mercies, may recall them through His grace to repentance; in fact, we believe that this happens not infrequently, although we cannot be persuaded that this will certainly and indubitably happen.

The following dogmas, therefore, which by public writings are being scattered among the people, we reject with our whole mind and heart as harmful to piety and good morals: namely, 1) True believers are not able to sin deliberately, but only out of ignorance and weakness. 2) True believers through no sins can fall out of the grace of God. 3) A thousand sins, even all the sins of the whole world, are not able to render election invalid. 4) To believers and to the elect no sins, however great and grave they can be, are imputed; but all present and future sins have already been remitted. 5) True believers, having fallen into destructive heresies, into grave and most atrocious sins, like adultery and homicide, on account of which the church, after the justification of Christ, is compelled to testify that it is not able to tolerate them in its external communion and that they will have no part in the kingdom of Christ unless they are converted, nevertheless are not able to fall from faith totally and finally.

A true believer, as for the present time he can be certain about his faith and the integrity of his conscience, and thus also concerning his salvation and the saving benevolence of God toward him, for that time can be and ought to be certain; and on this point we reject the pontifical opinion.

A true believer can and ought indeed to be certain for the future that he is able, by diligent watchfulness, through prayers, and through other holy exercises, to persevere in true faith, and he ought also to be certain that divine grace for persevering will never be lacking; but we do not see how he can be certain that he will never afterwards be remiss in his duty but that he will persevere in faith and in those works of piety and love which are fitting for a believer in this school of Christian warfare; neither do we deem it necessary that concerning this thing a believer should be certain.

(Peter Y. DeJong, Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dordt, 1618-1619, Reformed Fellowship, Inc., Grand Rapids, MI: 1968. Pages 220ff.)

In commenting on the following remarks of yours, I think I can illustrate exactly what I see as the semantic problem in this discussion:

I have read the Remonstrance. It is not as bad as Calvinists make it out to be,

One of my concerns as a Catholic and sometimes "generic Christian" apologist is the tendency of people to exaggerate, misunderstand, or distort the claims of their opponents. Calvinists are notorious for doing this to Arminians, and in turn, Lutherans or Wesleyans often distort the claims of Calvin and Calvinists.

Within Lutheranism, it looks like there is some distortion going on with regard to Melanchthon as well (and no doubt, the "Philippists" or "Melanchthonians" also fall prey to the same tendency of human nature). I'm interested in truth in theological matters and in finding as much common ground as possible, without anyone having to give up cherished distinctives. That is the ecumenist in me.

. . . but not Lutheran either, especially on election. And the statements on conversion leave room for ambiguity on [whether] God's grace makes man able to believe yet [also able to] resist.

I don't understand what the difficulty is if one believes that man can fall away from faith later on, after regeneration or justification. Of course, God's grace makes men able to believe, and their own free will gives them the ability to resist and sin and fall away.

That is what I meant when I said Lutherans don't play by either Calvinist or Arminian rules. We would reject freewill. Period.

But you don't reject free will because you deny predestination of the damned and accept universal atonement and the possibility of falling away from grace. All of that involves free will. If it didn't, then you should be consistent and adopt TULIP and Calvinism, which is internally consistent but ethically questionable and contrary to human self-understanding,experience, and Scripture.

Freewill if it means man can decide for or against grace, once grace is given.

Concord says men can reject grace. I don't get it . . .

. . . But if freewill means man can choose to refrain from resistance, then that is a big no no, for Lutherans, as well as Calvinists.

In what practical sense is "refraining from resistance" any different from "being enabled to will and follow by God's grace"? This isn't biblical language; it's just men weakly trying to explain some of the deepest mysteries in theology.

If the view is [that] man can resist but converts, where NO REFRAINING FROM RESISTANCE is involved, then I agree. But if it means man converts because he refrains from conversion, then Lutherans would object and see it as synergism, as I pointed out from [the] book of Concord.

I think this is just playing around with words. I know you don't mean it that way, but I don't see much difference between the two scenarios. In both views, God's grace is the cause of conversion.

But Lutherans would see any statement saying God's grace allows man to choose to resist or refrain from resistance as saying God's grace is [a] cause but NOT [the] sole cause of conversion.

It remains the sole cause because it causes the will to cooperate. The will is initially passive and only made active by grace. So I fail to see how the will is then a "cause." This is what Melanchthon meant, as shown. The will cooperates, it does not cause any of this. Grace is always the cause. So I see this as much ado about nothing. It's based on misunderstanding and inability to accept biblical paradox and mystery, and unnecessarily dichotomizing, "either/or" thought.

Lutherans definitely reject the idea of refraining from resistance as cause or one of causes of conversion.

But no one is saying it is a cause . . .

Arminians say [that] if one holds to no refraining from resistance as cause of conversion, then that must mean grace is given to [the] elect. Calvinists say if grace is for all and can be resisted, it must mean [that] man can choose for God as well with God's grace. Lutherans would reject both. We don't go beyond Scripture.

No, you contradict Scripture and you go beyond reason, as this is an unreasonable and incoherent (at least how you present it: I am assuming you are accurately representing Lutheranism).

And as documented, the book of Concord would utterly reject election conditional on our faith.

But Arminianism is not election conditional on our faith because God causes the faith! If God makes a decision on election based on His foreknowledge of who will positively respond to His grace and who will not (as in my own Molinist position), that still does not mean that any cause is located in man. The cause still lies entirely with God. It's not a question of God's cause vs. man's cause. It's all God.

[The Book of Concord also] reject[s] the following:

1) God's grace is on the willing (which can mean semi-Pelagian[ism], if intent is to say man is able to be willing before grace comes and only needs grace to enable him to make that decision to come . . .

I think this is logically confused again. What sense does it make to say that man is willing before grace, but needs grace to make the decision? He either needs grace to make the decision or he does not. If he needs it, grace is the cause and man cannot take the first steps at all (as in Arminianism, Calvinism, and Catholicism alike: all are sola gratia positions, much as Calvinists vigorously and wrongheadedly protest that).

Lutherans are "logically confused." We simply refuse to follow either Calvinist or Arminian logic to [their] conclusion[s].

There's no such thing as "Calvinist or Arminian logic." There is only logic (and Scripture). Just like Luther said: Scripture and plain reason" (I guess that was the sort of reason that wasn't the "devil's whore").

We simply say if conversion takes place, it is zero to do with anything man does, not even refraining from resistance to grace. If resistance takes place, it is because man is already resisting apart from grace. And his resistance . . . shows man has no freewill at all to refrain from resistance.

If man is free enough to later resist grace, then he can resist it initially. And he can also cooperate with it, by God's grace.

But Lutherans still would not allow for man to take ANY step once grace is given towards conversion. ZIPPO.

So what happens? Man goes into a coma, and then goes to heaven when he dies, since he does not take "ANY" step, "ZIPPO"? Sounds like irresistible grace / irresistible coma or robot-state to me.

If he doesn't need grace to initiate the process, then it is Semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism, according to definition:

[Semi-Pelagianism], while not denying the necessity of Grace for salvation, maintained that the first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later.

(Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross, Oxford Univ. Press, rev. 1983, 1258)

The Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 ed., vol. 10, 625) states:

The result of Semi-Pelagianism, however, was the denial of the necessity of God's unmerited, supernatural, gracious empowering of man's will for saving action . . . From [529] . . . Semi-Pelagianism was recognized as a heresy in the Roman Catholic Church.

or can mean Arminianism, where man cannot will to come, unless grace is given and once grace is given it can only operate only on those willing, for conversion),

In Pelagianism, man take the first steps towards salvation and regeneration and justification. In Arminianism, he does not.

2) that there are three causes of conversion: word, Spirit, and will of man (Lutherans hold only [the] first two causes, not [the] last cause, which is classical Melanchthon[ian] language later on).

Again, all depends on where human free will is placed relative to God's grace. Arminians, Catholics, and Melanchthon (as far as I can tell) all make God's grace the cause of the initial decision of man to receive the grace, or to cooperate with grace. So grace is the cause, not man's will. And this is Melanchthon's meaning, for he writes:

No man by his natural power can take away death and the inborn evil tendency of his nature. Only the Son of God can do this . . .

And:

. . . we cannot begin inward obedience in our hearts without divine help and without the Holy Spirit.

Melanchthon scholar Hans Engelland clarified this:

Yes, . . . [for Melanchthon] the will is free in its ability to conform to grace . . . However, Melanchthon is speaking in the first assertion about the three causes which concurrently work together, not of a natural will but of a will that agrees, and he is thinking in the second of one who is already reborn, as a conversation recorded by Jacob Runge shows. Many similar remarks corroborate this. "Trust and joy in the heart are the immediate works of the Holy Spirit." The will is active in conversion "in so far as God has healed it" . . . Any nonresistance of the will results from the inducement of the Holy Spirit.

It's not as if the will is autonomous. The Holy Spirit first enables it and then it cooperates. I fail to see how that is logically and metaphysically any different even from God activating a "stone" and enabling it to cooperate. If cooperation is impossible but for God's grace and enabling power, then there is no synergism in conversion. Period. It's a distinction without a difference. In Semi-Pelagianism, on the other hand, man can make the first move without the Holy Spirit. That is rank heresy. But it is not Melanchthon's error, nor Arminian, nor Catholic (once all are accurately understood in what they assert and in what they deny).

But Lutherans would see cooperation towards conversion, even if grace precedes it, as synergism, granted the smallest amount of synergism. But still synergism to us. I see you object to that.

I do. It makes no sense, because you agree that man cooperates after regeneration, and that is basically what we are saying, and what Melanchthon taught, as shown. It's all semantics again.

Lutherans reject freewill plus God's sovereignty in paradox, period.

I don't see that you do, because you are not Calvinists. Calvinists are the ones who reject free will, and do it consistently. Grace is always the cause. Free will merely cooperates, entirely enabled by grace. This is the biblical position, and it solves the dilemma which really isn't one.

Lutherans have as much in common with Arminians on freewill in relations to once grace is given as Calvinists on Christ dying for the elect.

Then you should stop saying you reject free will, as this is what we are talking about: the will, post-grace. Before that it can do nothing good whatsoever.

We saw this denial of initial synergy or autonomy in the will of man to do good or seek God, also in the Arminian statements you cited:

C. It is necessary therefore that by God in Christ through His Holy Spirit he be regenerated and renewed in intellect, affections, will, and in all his powers, so that he might be able to understand, reflect upon, will and carry out the good things which pertain to salvation . . . even the regenerate himself is unable to think, will, or do the good, or to resist any temptations to evil, apart from that preceding or prevenient, awakening, following and cooperating grace.

Therefore, I continue to maintain that the difference in soteriology and predestination of the elect, between the Lutheran factions and between Lutherans and Arminians are quite minor, mostly semantical, and laced with unhelpful misunderstandings. The real differences are those between "free will + God's sovereignty held in paradox" advocates (Arminians, Wesleyans, Thomist and Molinist Catholics, confessional Lutherans, Melanchthonians, and Orthodox) and Calvinists with their views on TULIP and double predestination, on the one hand, and Semi-Pelagians and Pelagians with their heretical notion of works-salvation and denial of original sin and its effects, on the other.

On whether grace is resistible or not, Lutherans would side with the Arminians against the Calvinists. As well as on if grace is for all or not the same way.

This is where I see an internal inconsistency. If you hold to "utter depravity" it seems to me that you must also hold irresistible grace. If God does absolutely all with no cooperation whatever (not even in the sense of a cooperative will fully enabled by divine grace), then free will is denied, and the Calvinist TULIP appears to be the only internally-consistent, coherent solution (i.e., given those premises). In other words, trying to reach an amalgam between the two viewpoints does not work. If one can fall away from grace later, then they can resist it initially and retain a measure of free will. This is why I have concluded after studying this, that Melanchthon is more internally-consistent than confessional Lutheranism.

On whether conversion occurs because man refrains from resistance to grace or not, Lutherans would side with the Calvinists against Arminians (including Melanchthon).

More internal inconsistency or mere semantics with no practical difference from Melanchthon . . .

On if grace makes the unwilling to become willing, Lutherans and Calvinists would define that view of conversion the same way.

But so, too, would Arminians and Catholics, as this entails the sola gratia common to all these viewpoints.

On whether Christ died for all or not, Lutherans would agree with Arminians against Calvinists.

And with Catholics and Orthodox and Scripture.

On the issue of perseverance, Lutherans and Calvinists would agree that the reason for that as well as conversion joined to it, is because God decreed that the elect would both convert and persevere.

Virtually all Christians agree on this as well. Of course the elect will persevere, because that is involved in the very definition of the word: "elect" are those who end up in heaven!

So both Luts and Cals would agree that election is cause of both conversion and perseverance and would reject the idea of election being contigent on either one.

But this causes a contradiction with the Lutheran view that some converted people can later fall away. If they fall away (and never repent) they are not of the elect; therefore, you can't say that all conversion is caused by election. The elect are a smaller class than the converted, because some converted can fall away later. So the Calvinist view is again more consistent and coherent (though I reject it because I deny its premises).

Lutherans would agree with Calvinists that some form of cooperation takes place where man does do good with God's help after conversion.

And with Arminians and Catholics and Orthodox . . . we cooperate with the grace that is the sole cause of our sanctification.

On each of the last three points, Lutherans would look Arminians in some extent (like resistible/universal grace, apostasy, universal atonement) and would look Calvinists at others (perseverance of the elect, conversion and perseverance because God predestined them to, conversion has man as passive the whole time, no refraining from resistance to grace).

To say that God predestines the elect and that some fall away from salvation or grace are not contradictory assertions. This is simply to deny irresistible grace. Grace is given to some men who in fact resist it. Those who resist are not of the elect, by definition.

I still say you are Arminian, but a brand which is more internally-inconsistent than other brands. I don't think the mixture of systems that Lutherans are attempting to pull off, succeeds. Luther was more consistent (but more wrong), as are Calvinists. The other internally-consistent option is Arminianism or Catholicism (either Thomism or Molinism).

Ultimately, [Lutheranism is its] own theological system. [We] see both Calvinists and Arminians trying to make Scriptures "consistent" at the expense of just letting Scriptures say it like it is!

And we respond by saying that the Bible is consistent, because it does not contradict itself (as it is all truth and no falsehood), but it contains paradox (which is different from contradiction). One need not chuck reason at the altar of revelation. There is no need to, as all truth is God's truth.

This was a great discussion. Thanks! I think it proves once again that Protestants and Catholics can dialogue and learn quite a bit from each other (I've learned a lot, for which I am grateful). So I appreciate the opportunity, and commend you. I also respect your firm commitment to a Christian denominational standard, which is all too rare in this age of "non-denominationalism" and doctrinal relativism or "minimalism." I'll take a man who takes a stand for a position and defends it, any day over one who doesn't care what position he holds and thinks all equally plausible or permissible.

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 16 June 2003.

The Ambiguous Relationship of Luther and the Early Protestants to St. Augustine (with Dr. Edwin Tait)

Philip Melanchthon: woodcut by Albrecht Durer

The words in blue are from Dr. Edwin Tait: an Anglican Church historian.

I asked Dave about this, and he gave me a reference to a letter of Melanchthon's in which Melanchthon said that he knew Augustine didn't fully support the Protestant view but cited him as a supporter because of Augustine's accepted authority. I have not looked at the context of this,

You could at least cite the thing to the list (I sent it to you), if you are going to mention it. Here is the entirety of what I have in one of my papers:

Philip Melanchthon, in his letter to Johann Brenz (May 1531), illustrates how the Protestants had departed from patristic precedent:

Avert your eyes from such a regeneration of man and from the Law and look only to the promises and to Christ . . . Augustine is not in agreement with the doctrine of Paul, though he comes nearer to it than do the Schoolmen. I quote Augustine as in entire agreement, although he does not sufficiently explain the righteousness of faith; this I do because of public opinion concerning him.

(in Hartmann Grisar, Luther, six volumes, translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 2nd edition, 1914, vol. 4, 459-460)

Grisar, on p. 459, states that "The letter was written by Melanchthon to Johann Brenz, but it had the entire approval of Luther, who even appended a few words to it. While clearly throwing overboard Augustine, it is nevertheless anxious to retain him."

The documentation Grisar gives is "end of May, 1531", Luthers Briefwechsel, 9, p. 18. This eleven-volume work was edited by L. Enders: Frankfurt & Stuttgart, 1884-1907; also 12 volumes, edited by G. Kawerau, Leipzig, 1910. Or is that also a biased source, since it is probably Lutheran and thus tilted toward Luther? :-)

and I'm not sure if it is quite as underhanded as Dave makes it sound.

I didn't make it "sound" anything at all. I merely quoted the portion of the letter that I have, from Grisar.

The Reformers clearly did believe that Augustine's view of grace was in important points coincident with their own, and that Augustine contradicted what most of their Catholic opponents were saying was the Catholic view.

And they also increasingly recognized that Augustine disagreed with key points of their theology as well. Grisar also cites Julius Kostlin (a well-known Protestant Luther scholar). He cites him as saying:

Luther could, indeed, appeal to St. Augustine in support of the thesis that man becomes righteous and is saved purely by God's gracious decree and the working of His Grace and not by any natural powers and achievements, but not for the further theory that man is regarded by God as just purely by the virtue of faith . . . nor that the Christian thus justified can never perform anything meritorious in God's sight but is saved merely by the pardoning grace of God which must ever anew be laid hold of by faith . . . Only gradually did the fundamental difference between the Augustinian view, his own and that of Paul become entirely clear to Luther.

(Grisar, ibid., IV, 458; citing Kostlin, Martin Luther. Sein Leben und seine Schriften, 5th ed., continued after Kostlin's death by G. Kawerau, 2 volumes, Berlin, 1903; quotation from vol. 1, 138. I located a biography of Luther by Kostlin online at the Project Gutenberg website. I believe this is an earlier edition of the same work.

Of course, this doesn't verify any deliberate botching of texts (I have not ever claimed that, and I believe I made this clear in our private correspondence), but it shows that Luther was indeed aware that his theology was diverging from St. Augustine's. I found the following statement in this online book (by Julius Kostlin):

Herein also Luther found the theology of St. Augustine in accord
with the testimony of the great Apostle. While studying that
theology, his conviction of the power of sin and the powerlessness
of man's own strength to overcome it, grew more and more decided.
But St. Paul taught him to understand that belief somewhat
differently to St. Augustine. To Luther it was not merely a
recognition of objective truths or historical facts. What he
understood by it, with a clearness and decision which are wanting in
St. Augustine's teaching, was the trusting of the heart in the mercy
offered by the message of salvation, the personal confidence in the
Saviour Christ and in that which He has gained for us. With this
faith, then, and by the merits and mediation of the Saviour in whom
this faith is placed, we stand before God, we have already the
assurance of being known by God and of being saved, and we are
partakers of the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies more and more the inner
man. According to St. Augustine, on the contrary, and to all
Catholic theologians who followed his teaching, what will help us
before God is rather that inward righteousness which God Himself
gives to man by His Holy Spirit and the workings of His grace, or,
as the expression was, the righteousness infused by God. The good,
therefore, already existing in a Christian is so highly esteemed
that he can thereby gain merit before the just God and even do more
than is required of him. But to a conscience like Luther's, which
applied so severe a standard to human virtue and works, and took
such stern count of past and present sins, such a doctrine could
bring no assurance of forgiveness, mercy, and salvation. It was in
faith alone that Luther had found this assurance, and for it he
needed no merits of his own. The happy spirit of the child of God,
by its own free impulse, would produce in a Christian the genuine
good fruit pleasing in God's sight. It was a long time before Luther
himself became aware how he differed on this point from his chief
teacher amongst theologians. But we see the difference appear at the
very root and beginning of his new doctrine of salvation; and it
comes out finally, based on apostolic authority, clear and sharp, in
the theology of the Reformer.

Grisar gives a bit more evidence of the relationship of early Lutheranism to St. Augustine:

Against any citation of St. Augustine the Lutheran theologians and preachers in Pomerania protested during the negotiations for the formula of Concord. By thus falsely alleging this Father, they said in their declaration at the Synod of Stettin in 1577, a formidable weapon was placed in the hands of their Catholic opponents of which they had not failed to avail themselves against the Protestants; they were also assuming the responsibility for a public lie: "Augustine's book De spiritu et littera teaches concerning Justification what the Papists teach today." In the following year they declared against the form of the first Confessio Augustana, as published in Wittenberg in 1531 by Luther and our other fathers," again on the ground that "there Augustine's consensus is alleged." In Mecklenburg the strictures of the Synods of Pomerania were accepted as perfectly warranted.

(Grisar, ibid., IV, 461)

(In this section Grisar was quoting well-known Catholic historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger: Die Reformation, 3 volumes, Ratisbon: 1846-1848, III, 370)

That being the case, they were not above claiming Augustine and neglecting to make it clear that the agreement was not total.

. . . which is all I and Grisar have stated. So where is the beef? By all means go look at the letter yourself and then report back to us.

. . . Dave did not apparently read Melanchthon's letter as a whole.

That is correct, as I did not have access to Luther's correspondence in German, nor could I read German if I did. Maybe this letter is in the English edition?

I will look at the letter in question when next I have access to Melanchthon's letters in the Corpus Reformatorum.

Please do so, and I want as full a citation as possible. You want to press this point, so face the music if it comes out the way that it appears, from what we know thus far. It probably won't prove deliberate mis-quoting, but I think it will show that there was misrepresentation going on.

At any rate, Dave did not provide me with any evidence for outright fabrication.

That is correct.

The most the Melanchthon letter means is that at least one Reformer was willing to exaggerate the degree of Augustine's agreement with him for polemical purposes.

Correct again, except that, since Luther agreed with the letter and added to it, and since it appears in the collection of his own correspondence, that means at least two "Reformers" did so (including the most important one of all).

Lastly, we find in Luther's Table-Talk the following slams against St. Augustine and the Fathers:

Behold what great darkness is in the books of the Fathers concerning faith . . . Augustine wrote nothing to the purpose concerning faith. (DXXVI)

The more I read the books of the Fathers, the more I find myself offended. (DXXX)

Jerome should not be numbered among the teachers of the church, for he was a heretic. (DXXXV)

(edition translated by William Hazlitt, Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, n.d., 286-289)

I don't see anything in any of the above that would disabuse me or any Catholic from the notion that the Protestants departed from the Fathers to a great extent, particularly from St. Augustine. The Catholic Church is far more the legatee of Augustine than Reformed Protestantism.
And of course I have a paper about that!: St. Augustine: Are Reformed Protestants or Catholics Closer Theologically to His Teaching?

I found a website where one Michael J. Vlach is reviewing Alister E. McGrath's book, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (2d. ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Here are some interesting comments showing that Protestantism departed from Augustine at several key points:

McGrath refers repeatedly to the enormous significance of Augustine on soteriology. He points out that Augustine is the first major theologian of church history to seriously address the issue of justification (24). Although Augustine’s views would undergo development and change in his own lifetime, many of his positions would eventually become predominant in the medieval era.

Some of Augustine’s key views according to McGrath include:

· Man’s election is based on God’s eternal decree of predestination.

· Free will is not lost; it is merely incapacitated and may be healed by grace.

· The act of faith is a divine gift.

· Faith is adherence to the Word of God.

· It is love, not faith, that is the power that brings about conversion.

· There is a distinction between operative and cooperative grace.

· The righteousness of God is that by which God justifies sinners.

· God’s prevenient grace prepares man’s will for justification.

In specific relation to justification, Augustine held the following:

· The motif of amor Dei dominates Augustine’s theology of justification.

· The verb ‘to justify’ means ‘to make righteous.’ Thus, justification is about being ‘made just.’

· Justification is all-embracing, including both the event of justification and the process of justification.

· Man’s righteousness in justification is inherent rather than imputed.

The predominant view of justification in the medieval era was this: “Justification refers not merely to the beginning of the Christian life, but also to its continuation and ultimate perfection, in which the Christian is made righteous in the sight of God and the sight of men through a fundamental change in his nature, and not merely his status” (41). With this understanding, there was no distinction between justification and sanctification that would later characterize Reformation orthodoxy. Other views associated with the medieval era according to McGrath include:

· The infusion of grace initiates a chain of events that eventually leads to justification.

· Justification consists in the remission of sins.

· Justification involves a real change in its object.

· Man has a positive role to play in his own justification.

· A human disposition toward justification is necessary.

· Justification takes place within the sphere of the church and is particularly associated with the sacraments of baptism and penance.

· Grace is understood in Augustinian terms, including the elements of restoration of the divine image, forgiveness of sins, regeneration, and indwelling of the Godhead.

. . . McGrath does positively assert that the origins of the concept of imputed righteousness “lie with Luther” (201).

If this concept originated with Luther, it could hardly have also been the view of St. Augustine. I found another fascinating article in the excellent evangelical online journal, Quodlibet (which I have linked to on my website for several years now): "Justification as Healing: The Little-Known Luther," by Ted M. Dorman.

Here are some relevant comments:

Reformed Protestantism's historic distinction between the passive or imputed righteousness of Christ given in justification, and the active or infused righteousness given in sanctification, has its genesis in Luther's thought. Prior to Luther justification had been tied to regeneration, so that the forgiveness of sins was viewed not merely as a forensic declaration of the believer's status as righteous before God, but as a process whereby the believer is actually made righteous. In this way, as Alister McGrath has pointed out, Luther introduced a theological novum into the Western church tradition 'which marks a complete break with the tradition up to this point.' [1]

[Footnote 1: Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Two volumes. Cambridge University Press, 1986. See Volume I pages 182ff. and Volume II pages 2f. The quotation is from II:]

The Reformers did not deny the reality of infused righteousness. Indeed, they insisted that justifying (passive) righteousness never exists apart from sanctifying (active) righteousness. [2] At the same time, however, they made a 'notional distinction' between justification and sanctification where none had previously existed. [3]

[Footnote 2: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion III.2.8. Footnote 3: McGrath, Iustitia Dei II.2]

. . . the earlier views of Luther, as opposed to his later views, are more in line with the pre-Reformation classical Christian consensus on justification . . .

[Footnote 8: This notion of a shift between Luther's earlier and later positions on justification is generally rejected by Lutherans]

. . . A survey of Martin Luther's writings between 1515 and 1521 reveals a doctrine of justification which in some ways bears more resemblance to Augustine's teachings than those of the later Luther himself. This is not to say that Luther consciously followed Augustine; indeed, in 1545 he wrote that he formulated his early perspectives on justification before he had read Augustine on the subject.

. . . Some time after 1521 Luther's ideas concerning the relationship between faith, justification, and obedience to God's commands underwent significant revision. By the time he wrote his 1535 commentary on Galatians, Luther no longer emphasized obedience to God's commandments as an expression of justifying faith. Instead, he divided justifying faith and obedience to God's commandments into separate categories. The former he ascribed to the 'passive righteousness of Christ'; the latter to the 'active righteousness of the Law.'

[Footnote 24: Luther's Works Volume 26, 9: 'For between these two kinds of righteousness, the active righteousness of the Law and the passive righteousness of Christ, there is no middle {i.e., common} ground.']

In the opening paragraphs of his 1535 Galatians commentary Luther explicitly divorces the commandments of God from the righteousness of faith. After identifying various kinds of 'righteousness' (political, ceremonial, parental, and moral) Luther goes on to say:

There is, in addition to these [various kinds of righteousness], yet another righteousness, the righteousness of the Law or of the Decalog, which Moses teaches. We, too, teach this, but after the doctrine of faith. . . . . Over and above all these there is the righteousness of faith or Christian righteousness, which is to be distinguished most carefully from all the others. For they are all contrary to this righteousness, both because they proceed from the laws of emperors, the traditions of the pope, and the commandments of God, and because they consist in our works and can be achieved by us . . . . But this most excellent righteousness, the righteousness of faith, which God imputes to us through Christ without works . . . . is quite the opposite; it is a merely passive righteousness, while all the others, listed above, are active. For here we work nothing, render nothing to God; we only receive and permit someone else to work in us, namely, God.

[Footnote 25: Luther's Works Volume 26, 4f.]

. . . Whatever may have occasioned Luther's shift in thinking between 1521 and 1535, it is a matter of historical record that after about 1530 the Protestant Reformers defined justification almost solely in forensic terms as the forgiveness of sins.

[Footnote 38: McGrath, Iustitia Dei II 2. See also McGrath's comment on page 23 that Philip Melanchthon's increasing emphasis on iustitia aliena from about 1530 onward provided the chief impetus to this shift. To what degree Melanchthon influenced Luther, or vice-versa, is beyond the scope of this study.]

. . . In addition to Luther, three classical Christian sources demonstrate that prior to the Reformation the Church viewed justification as both an event and a process. These three are Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, and Thomas Aquinas.

Augustine's influence on Luther and Calvin is difficult to overstate, especially with relation to the doctrine of total depravity . . . Yet Trent's emphasis on justification as a process does find precedent in Augustine, perhaps Luther's favorite classical theologian, who spoke of justification not merely as a singular event but also as a process 'by which [God] justifies those who from unrighteousness He makes righteous.'

[Footnote 42: Sermon 131; cited in Thomas Oden, Life in the Spirit (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992), 125. See also Catechism of the Catholic Church (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press 1994), 481ff. (Part Three, Chapter 3, Article 2). Also worthy of note here is that Augustine, like Luther a millennium later, spoke of Christ as a physician who heals our diseases (On the Spirit and the Letter chapters 9 and 10). A useful summary of Augustine's doctrine of justification may be found in Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 83-87.]

[ . . . ]

[Footnote 47: It must be noted that both Anselm and Aquinas followed Augustine in that neither entertained the Reformers' notional distinction between justification and sanctification, and both tended to emphasize infused righteousness.]

Lastly, I looked up every single reference to St. Augustine in my copy of the Book of Concord (the doctrinal standard for Lutheranism). Without exception it claims that Augustine is in full agreement with Lutheran doctrine. Furthermore, it makes outright false factual claims, such as that Augustine denied ex opere operato (the notion that the sacraments have inherent power apart from the dispenser or recipient), purgatory, and (though not completely clear), baptismal regeneration. These are all erroneous judgments. Augustine wrote:

It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another’s will when that infant is brought to Baptism . . . The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in one Adam.

(Letter to Bishop Boniface, 98, 2; A.D. 408; in Jurgens, William A., editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers {FEF}, 3 volumes, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970, III, 4)

The Sacraments of the New Testament give salvation . . .

(Explanations of the Psalms, 73, 2; A.D. 418; in Jurgens, III, 19)

It is an excellent thing that the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation, and the Sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else but life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too.

The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration.

. . . there is a full remission of sins in Baptism.

(Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, 1, 24, 34 / 2,
27, 43 /2, 28, 46; 412; in Jurgens, FEF, III, 91-93)

Luther and Augustine agree with regard to baptism, but (strangely), confessional Lutheranism seems to have become a bit confused about baptism and moves away from Luther's traditionalism in that respect. As for purgatory, Augustine wrote:

The man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has in this life the curse of his land on all his works, and after this life he will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment.

(Genesis Defended Against the Manicheans, 2, 20, 30. Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 38)

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment.

(City of God, 21, 13. Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 105)

The prayer . . . is heard on behalf of certain of the dead; but it is heard for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not for the rest of their life in the body do such wickedness that they might be judged unworthy of such mercy, nor who yet lived so well that it might be supposed they have no need of such mercy.

(City of God, 21, 24, 2. Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 106)

That there should be some such fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, - through a certain purgatorial fire.

(Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love, 18,69, Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 149. See also -- in the same work -- 29,109-110; The Care That Should be Taken of the Dead, 1,3)

So we see the usual Protestant project of trying to co-opt the Fathers (above all, St. Augustine) for their purposes and views (in an effort to show that Protestantism is entirely "catholic" and in accord with the best of all previous Christian tradition), in the Book of Concord. But the attempt fails miserably, because, as we have seen, modern Protestant scholarship shows many profound differences between Protestantism and St. Augustine, particularly with regard to soteriology and justification in particular.

Does this mean that the Book of Concord and Philip Melanchthon (its primary author) were deliberately dishonest, and rascally scoundrels? I would not make that claim, and I don't think so. Much more likely is that their Protestant and anti-Roman biases simply blinded them to certain facts and thus led to inaccuracies. Or they did inadequate research (there was no Internet in those days which gives someone like myself an ability to come up with relevant materials lightning-fast).

But whatever is true regarding their motives and intentions, the fact of erroneous presentation of St. Augustine as in entire agreement with Protestant distinctives is indisputable. We need go no further than McGrath (no slouch and no mean scholar) to see that very clearly.

I was originally responding to Mathitria's claim that the Reformers were deliberately dishonest. When I asked you where Mathitria got this, you supplied me with this quote from Grisar. Which is why I referred to it as if you had intended it to prove deliberate deceit. It certainly does indicate Melanchthon's use of some degree of "dissimulation" (to use a term Erasmus employed from time to time).

Indeed, and that is why I am quite curious to see if you can locate the entire letter and share it with us.

I wish this surprised me, but it doesn't. Of course, this indicates how false the idea is that the Reformers were all about throwing theology open to ordinary people--they wanted to keep some of the tough issues away from the people just as much as any of their Catholic opponents.

Of course.

However, my point is that Melanchthon clearly did believe that Augustine was in more agreement with the Reformers than with their opponents--just not close enough. Luther held the same view. The Reformed sometimes did also, though generally they tended to be more positive about the Fathers (not what you would expect, but it seems to be the case).

They can believe this, but demonstrating it is another matter.

McGrath is certainly right that imputed righteousness is not in the Fathers, and Luther admitted this. However, the Reformers still believed that Augustine was on their side in some fundamental ways. And many of the self-proclaimed champions of Catholicism do seem to have been rather deaf to the Augustinian side of the tradition. Sadoleto's commentary on Romans was in fact condemned at Rome for semi-Pelagianism, and I believe Pighius also had some trouble in this regard (these are two of Calvin's more famous Catholic opponents). Unfortunately, Girolamo Seripando (general of the Augustinian Order) never went head to head with the Reformers, as far as I know. It would have been interesting to see what he would have said. Seripando is _clearly_ more faithful to Augustine than Luther or Calvin. I'm not sure the same could be said of all the Catholic theologians of that era. And not all of Seripando's Augustinian views were accepted at Trent.

It's because there were lots of theories on justification flying around. People were confused. But someone like Aquinas wasn't confused about the issue. Because the late Middle Ages was trying to move away from Aquinas and Scholasticism, we got all the semi-Pelagianism and other goofy mystical theories being bandied about. Too bad it took so long to get Trent to clarify things. But once it did it was brilliant.

Patristic scholarship was still only just getting off the ground at this point, and many of the best patristic scholars became Protestants. It wasn't till the turn of the 17th century that Catholics recovered the edge. The Protestants did use a lot of bogus arguments to try to show that the Fathers were on their side. I agree with you that these arguments were probably mostly in good faith.

I think people (of any viewpoint) often see what they want to see, and don't see what they don't want to see.

I don't know all the details of the controversies leading up to the Formula of Concord. I don't know off the top of my head which Lutheran camp the Pomeranians fall into, though they sound like hardline "Gnesio-Lutherans." However, it would be a mistake to assume that they represent Lutheranism as a whole. On the contrary, they were clearly upset with the more general practice of claiming Augustine's authority.

No one was saying they represent Lutheranism "as a whole." My point in citing that was to show that even among Protestants there were parties who knew that Augustine was being inaccurately claimed as a precursor in some things. I saw it with my own eyes, looking through the Book of Concord. Now, I hope you discover the letter of Melanchthon and produce it here, so we can wrap this up.

I did look up the Melanchthon letter. It turned out to be quite interesting from the point of view of my dissertation (one recently completed--but still much-to-be-revised--chapter of which compares my guy Martin Bucer with Luther and Melanchthon on the subject of law vs. Gospel; some of the things Melanchthon is criticizing Brenz for are pretty much what Bucer said).

Yes; there is much more of soteriology in it than of Augustine and how he was viewed or utilized by the first Protestants.

I've translated Melanchthon's entire letter and part of Brenz's reply. My translation was pretty quick . . . I tried to err on the side of literalism, especially where theological concepts were being discussed.

Thanks for doing this; I appreciate it. Here it is (I broke it up in paragraphs myself -- so that will not necessarily reflect original paragraphs -- if there were any):

[Background and context: Melanchthon had written to Brenz on April 8, saying that he understood why Brenz, a newly married man, hadn’t written, but asking him to start corresponding again. He also sent some propositions about justification. Brenz must have commented on them in a letter not found in the collection of Melanchthon’s correspondence. In mid-May Melanchthon responded]:

I received your rather long letter, which I enjoyed very much. I beg you to write often and at length. Regarding faith, I have figured out what your problem is (1). You still hold on to that notion of Augustine’s, who gets to the point of denying that the righteousness of reason is reckoned for righteousness before God—and he thinks rightly. Next he imagines that we are counted righteous on account of that fulfillment of the Law which the Holy Spirit works in us. So you imagine that people are justified by faith, because we receive the Holy Spirit by faith, so that afterwards we can be righteous by the fulfillment of the law which the Holy Spirit works in us.

This notion places righteousness in our fulfillment, in our cleanness or perfection, even though this renewal must follow faith. But you should turn your eyes completely away from this renewal and from the law, and toward the promise and Christ, and you should think that we are righteous, that is, accepted before God, and find peace of conscience, on account of Christ, and not on account of that renewal. For this new quality itself does not suffice. Therefore we are righteous by faith alone, not because it is the root, as you write, but because it lays hold of Christ, on account of whom we are accepted, whatever this new life (2) may be like—indeed it follows necessarily, but it does not give the conscience peace.

Therefore love, which is the fulfillment of the law, does not justify, but faith alone, not because it is a certain perfection in us, but only because it lays hold of Christ. We are righteous, not on account of love, not on account of the fulfillment of the law, not on account of our new life, even though these things are the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but on account of Christ; and we lay hold of this only through faith.

Augustine does not fully accord with (3) Paul’s pronouncement, even though he gets closer to it than the Scholastics. And I cite Augustine as fully agreeing with us (4) on account of the public conviction about him, even though he does not explain the righteousness of faith well enough. Believe me, dear Brenz, the controversy about the righteousness of faith is great and obscure. Nonetheless, you will understand it rightly if you totally take your eyes away from the law and Augustine’s notion about the fulfillment of the law, and fix your mind rather on the free promise, so that you think that we are righteous (that is, accepted) and find peace on account of the promise and on account of Christ. This pronouncement is true and makes Christ’s glory shine forth and wonderfully raises up [people’s] consciences. I have tried to explain it in the Apology, but it was not possible to speak in the same way there as I do now because of the calumnies of our opponents, even though I am saying the same thing essentially. (5)

When would the conscience have peace and a sure hope if it had to think that we are only counted righteous when that new life has been made perfect within us? What is this other than to be justified on the basis of the law, not the free promise? In the disputation I said this: that to attribute justification to love is to attribute justification to our work. There I have in mind the work done by the Holy Spirit in us. For faith justifies, not because it is a new work of the Holy Spirit in us, but because it lays hold of Christ, on account of whom we are accepted, not on account of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us.

If you will consider that the mind must be brought back from Augustine’s notion, you will easily understand the issue. Also, I hope to help you in some way by means of our apology, even if I speak cautiously of such things, which however cannot be understood except in the conflict of the conscience. The people indeed ought to hear the preaching of law and repentance; but meanwhile this true pronouncement of the Gospel must not be passed over. I ask you to write again, and let me know your judgment about this letter and the apology—whether this letter has satisfactorily answered your question. Farewell.

Phil. Mel.

Luther’s P.S.

And I, dear Brenz, in order to get a better grip on this issue frequently imagine it this way: as if in my heart there is no quality that is called faith or charity, but instead of them I put Christ himself and say: this is my righteousness; He is the quality and my formal righteousness, as they call it. In this way I free myself from the perception (6) of the law and works, and even from the perception of this object, Christ (7), who is understood as a teacher or a giver; but I want Him to be my gift and teaching in Himself, so that I may have all things in Him. (8) So he says: I am the way, the truth and the life. He does not say: I give you the way, the truth and the life, as if He worked in me while being placed outside of me. He must be such things in me, remain in me, live in me, speak not through me but into me (9), 2 Cor. 5; so that we may be righteousness in Him, not in love or in gifts that follow.

Footnotes

(1) Lit. “I hold/grasp what exercises you/should excercise you/might exercise you”.
(2) Lit. newness.
(3) Lit., does not satisfy.
(4) Melanchthon uses a Greek word which means “one who says the same”; “with us” is my addition since it’s understood in the original.
(5) Lit. in the thing/matter itself.
(6) Latin: ab intuitu.
(7) Or in another reading, this objective Christ.
(8) “Object” means “object of thought”—Luther’s point is that he doesn’t even think of Christ as a source of teaching or of gifts, such as the gift of charity.
(9) Luther uses the Greek here.

I think this correspondence makes it clear that there were disagreements among the Reformers about just how authoritative Augustine was and how close their
teaching was to his. While Brenz's letter to which Melanchthon took exception
appears to have been lost (or perhaps just hasn't been edited), his reply
makes a very Augustinian point, namely that faith is itself a work. I would
also say that Bucer, on whom I'm writing my dissertation, is more Augustinian
(and in places even Thomist) than many of the other Reformers. Which I don't
think contradicts anything you were saying.

No; I would expect differences on the continuum.

But the impression you gave, at least as quoted by Mathitria, was that the Reformers as a whole could not justify their views by the Fathers and realized not only that they couldn't but that this was a serious problem, so they resulted to dishonesty to cover it up.

The claim of my earlier paper was simply: "the Protestants had departed from patristic precedent." That is certainly an unarguable statement as it stands (people like McGrath and Oberman and Pelikan and Kelly establish it beyond all doubt -- even Norman Geisler, when he admits that imputed justification was unknown from the time of Paul to that of Luther). I said nothing about dishonesty -- let alone deliberate dishonesty. I simply cited the portion of the letter that Grisar had and let the reader decide for himself how to interpret it. My view, as it turns out, is identical to your own: it wasn't deliberate lying or deception, but a certain "playing fast and loose with the facts":

They were not above claiming Augustine and neglecting to make it clear that the agreement was not total.

The most the Melanchthon letter means is that at least one Reformer was willing to exaggerate the degree of Augustine's agreement with him for polemical purposes.

It certainly does indicate Melanchthon's use of some degree of "dissimulation" . . .

So we agree on that, and nothing in the letter as a whole suggests otherwise. Therefore, Grisar was not citing it in a hyper-polemical, unscholarly way himself. As far as I am concerned, he is vindicated, at least insofar as pertains to his use of this letter. You claimed he was so biased that I shouldn't have trusted him to even accurately present a portion of a letter. We continue to disagree on that. If you wish to show that Grisar was so polemical and "anti-Luther" that he can't be trusted, you will have to show it elsewhere. I get tired of hearing this claim from Protestants, but never seeing any hard evidence of it. So the weariness concerning the use and/or abuse of Grisar works both ways, methinks.

Please bear in mind that my initial issue was not with what you actually said but with what Mathitria was saying.

I understand that, but you raised larger issues about Grisar and apologetic / historiographical methodology, which I felt were important to deal with.

He cited you as an authority, and it is clear that he cited you incorrectly.

It may have been a problem of terminology. We probably don't need to blame Mathitria anymore than we need to blame Melanchthon. The important thing is to get to the facts. If I hadn't cited this particular letter from Grisar, you probably would have never heard of it or read it -- let alone learned something about Melanchthon and Luther's relationship to Augustine. So see, we do work together after all, and you and I agree about Melanchthon's (and Luther's) view of Augustine. And we appear to agree with the interpretation of a guy like McGrath, who represents current-day scholarship.

Note, however, that McGrath also backs up Grisar's main point in all this: that Augustine's view was different from the early Protestants, and that this was underplayed and ignored in documents such as the Book of Concord. That was always his beef (and mine), because it (yet again) cuts through the nonsense of early Protestantism supposedly returning to the patristic teachings. One can't return to something that never was. That makes Protestantism a revolution, not a reform, and this is what I have always held, since my conversion in 1990.

You went and found the actual letter in question, and what it showed was exactly what I (and Grisar) claimed for it in the beginning. So there was nothing even methodologically questionable here. I simply quoted a letter from a secondary source (but that source was a reputable historian and author of a six-volume work on one man).

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 28 January 2004.

Does My Luther Research Lack Proper Documentation?

The late Jaroslav Pelikan: primary editor of the 55-volume collection Luther's Works

(Particularly Regarding Primary Material From the 55-volume Luther's Works)

This seems to be a rather common (but blatantly false) charge, circulating around places where my severest Protestant critics -- most of them anti-Catholic -- tend to hang out (because I have written many many papers on Martin Luther). I figured it was about time to put this to rest. Very few of these hostile critics are willing to actually confront me with concrete examples of my alleged shortcomings and "dishonesty," etc., (let alone discuss them intelligently in a public forum, such as my blog), so I will now positively demonstrate that this nonsense has no basis in fact.

Apparently, my work about Luther is frequently cited on various discussion boards (the critics are constantly harping on and on about that, so it must be true), and, as a result, the counter-charge is often made by some Protestants that I am not trustworthy as any sort of reputable source for Luther's beliefs, since I am an "apologist" and a Catholic, etc. So it is important to make a strong statement that my papers are copiously documented from Luther's own words and from Protestant historians and experts on Luther as well.

A related charge is the old canard about "quoting out of context" (always ready at hand when someone wants to dismiss a piece of evidence without having to do any serious work of refutation). But this cannot be disproven in an overview such as this. It has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Again, only very rarely has anyone actually sought to demonstrate this with concrete example. Anyone is welcome to try. I challenge them, dare them, beg them to "put up or shut up." There is nothing to the charge. If someone is confident enough to produce some sort of rational argument along these lines, I will either refute the objection as groundless and at odds with the facts, or gratefully make a retraction.

For each paper, I will list the number of citations from Luther himself and from Protestant scholars (i.e., directly concerning Luther -- some papers have a wider subject matter), and note the sources. I won't even include Catholic scholars (even when they cite Luther's own words) because hostile critics (again, predominantly the anti-Catholic Protestants, as opposed to the fair-minded ecumenical ones) simply dismiss them as incorrigibly biased against Luther and therefore untrustworthy. This is not true, of course, but I am trying to think as these people do, and make an argument most effective for the purpose of countering their false (and often personally slanderous) charges.

* * * * *

"The Influence of William of Ockham and Nominalism on Martin Luther
and Early Protestant Thought" 205K

[only one section is directly about Luther; the paper is about how nominalism can be seen to be an influence on Luther, but not about the latter per se]

Primary Luther Sources

None

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church
Roland H. Bainton, Studies on the Reformation
Alister E. McGrath, Luther's Theology of the Cross

"The Protestant Revolt: Its Tragic Initial Impact" 162K

[contains a lot about Luther, as would be expected, but it is not specifically about him only, and it is from the early 90s, when I had a lot fewer Luther primary sources in my personal library than I do now]

Primary Luther Sources

Cited by Will Durant, The Reformation (5)
Cited by Giorgio de Santillana, The Age of Adventure
[+ a host of quotes cited in Catholic historians' sources]

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation (6)
Julius Kostlin, Life of Luther
Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity
Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther
Cross, F.L. & E.A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
Adolf von Harnack: Liberal Theology at its Height, edited by Martin Rumscheidt
Will Durant, The Reformation (7)
E. H. Gombrich, The Story of Art
Owen Chadwick, The Reformation (2)
Johan Huizinga, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation
A.G. Dickens, Reformation and Society in 16th-Century Europe (2)
R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (3)

Martin Luther's Violent, Inflammatory Rhetoric and its Relationship to the German Peasants' Revolt (1524-1525) 157K

Primary Luther Sources

Luther's Works (LW): Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage (1541), Vol. 41
LW: letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony (7 March 1522), Vol. 45
LW: letter to Wenceslaus Link, 19 March 1522, Vol. 45
LW: Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called (4 July 1522), Vol. 39
LW: Doctor Luther’s Bull and Reformation (1523), Vol. 39
LW: letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony and Duke John of Saxony, July 1524, Vol. 40
LW: Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, Part I, December 1524, Vol. 40

[LW = Luther's Works, American edition, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) and Helmut T.Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955]

Philadelphia Edition of Luther's Works (PE): Reply to the Answer of the Leipzig Goat [Jerome Emser, January 1521], Vol. III
PE: letter to Georg Spalatin, 16 January 1521, Vol. III
PE: Dr. Martin Luther's Answer to the Superchristian, Superspiritual, and Superlearned Book of Goat Emser of Leipzig, With a Glance at His Comrade Murner (March 1521), Vol. III
PE: An Earnest Exhortation for all Christians, Warning Them Against Insurrection and Rebellion (December 1521), Vol. III
PE: The Right and Power of a Christian Congregation or Community to Judge all Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proved From Scripture (Spring 1523), Vol. IV
PE: Preface to an Ordinance of a Common Chest (Spring 1523), Vol. IV
PE: On Trade and Usury (June 1524), Vol. IV
PE: An Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, May 1525, Vol. IV
PE: Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, May 1525, Vol. IV
PE: An Open Letter Concerning the Hard Book Against the Peasants, July 1525, Vol. IV

[PE = Luther's Works, Philadelphia edition (6 volumes), edited and translated by C.M. Jacobs and A.T.W. Steinhaeuser et al, A.J. Holman Co., The Castle Press, and Muhlenberg Press, 1932]

Cited by Preserved Smith (PS), The Life and Letters of Martin Luther: letter to Georg Spalatin, February 1520
PS: letter to Gerard Listrius at Zwolle, 30 July 1520
PS: letter to John Lang at Erfurt, 18 August 1520
PS: letter to Georg Spalatin, 14 May 1521
PS: letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony, 5 March 1522
PS: letter to Nicholas Hausmann at Zwickau, 17 March 1522
PS: letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony and Duke John of Saxony, July 1524
PS: letter to John Ruhel at Mansfeld, 4 May 1525
PS: letter to Nicholas Amsdorf at Magdeburg, 30 May 1525
PS: letter to Albert, Archbishop and Elector of Mayence, 21 July 1525

Cited by Roland Bainton (RB), Here I Stand: On the Pope as an Infallible Teacher, or On the Papacy at Rome (25 June 1520)
RB: remarks from March 1521

Cited by Gordon Rupp (GR), Luther's Progress to the Diet of Worms: On the Pope as an Infallible Teacher, or On the Papacy at Rome
GR: letter to Georg Spalatin, 16 January 1521
GR: (unspecified correspondence)

Cited by Will Durant (WD), The Reformation: On the Pope as an Infallible Teacher, or On the Papacy at Rome
WD: letter to Wenceslaus Link, 19 March 1522

Cited by Philip Schaff (SCH), History of the Christian Church: On the Pope as an Infallible Teacher, or On the Papacy at Rome
SCH: Luther's Last Letter to the Pope; to Pope Leo X, 13 October 1520
SCH: second of eight sermons preached upon his return from the Wartburg, 10 March 1522

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Gordon Rupp, Luther's Progress to the Diet of Worms (2)
Will Durant, The Reformation (7)
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (3)
Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (6)
Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther (4)
Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation
C.M. Jacobs (translator and editor, PE)
Owen Chadwick, The Reformation
Gunther Franz (Protestant?), Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg
James Mackinnon (Protestant?), Luther and the Reformation
Kyle C. Sessions (Protestant?), Reformation and Authority: The Meaning of the Peasant's Revolt
R.H. Murray, The Political Consequences of the Reformation; Studies in Sixteenth-Century Political Thought
Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction
H.G. Koenigsberger (Protestant?)
Harold J. Grimm
Joel Hurstfield (editor), The Reformation Crisis
Lewis W. Spitz (editor), The Reformation: Basic Interpretations

Counter-Reply: Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception) Has Present-Day Protestantism Maintained the "Reformational" Heritage of Classical Protestant Mariology? 152K

Primary Luther Sources

LW: Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521, Vol. 21
LW: Against the Roman Papacy: An Institution of the Devil, 1545, Vol. 41
LW: comment by editor Jaroslav Pelikan, Vol. 21
LW: comment by editor Jaroslav Pelikan, Vol. 22

Project Wittenberg website: "Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ," February 27, 1540.

Cited by Eric W. Gritsch: "Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ," February 28, 1540.

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (3)
Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through The Ages (4)
David Wright, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (3)
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics
Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of all Christians (4)
Friedrich Heiler (3)
Basilea Schlink, Mary, the Mother of Jesus
A. Lancashire, Born of the Virgin Mary
Heinrich Bullinger (3)
Peter Toon, "Appreciating Mary Today," in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, edited by David F. Wright
Elliot Miller, "The Mary of Roman Catholicism," Christian Research Journal
John De Satge, "The Evangelical Mary," in Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, edited by Alberic Stacpoole
Arthur Carl Piepkorn
Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert, in collaboration with Jaroslav Pelikan, Robert H. Fischer, and Arthur C. Piepkorn (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959) (4)
Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology
Eric W. Gritsch, in The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII, edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess (12)
Panel of 12 Lutheran and 10 Catholic scholars, in the above book (4)
Richard Marius (Protestant?), Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death
W. Tappolet, Das Marienlob der Reformatoren

"The Protestant Inquisition ('Reformation' Intolerance and Persecution)" 117K

[like The Protestant Revolt, this also contains a lot about Luther, but is not specifically about him only, and it is also from the early 90s, when I had a lot fewer Luther primary sources in my personal library than I do now]

Primary Luther Sources

Cited by Will Durant, The Reformation (6)
PE (1)
(+ a host of primary citations from Catholics Janssen and Grisar)

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation (3)
Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther
Cross, F.L. & E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
Walther Kohler, Reformation und Ketzerprozess
Karl Wappler, Die Inquisition
Johann Neander
Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma
Dean William Inge
Will Durant, The Reformation (11)
A.G. Dickens, Reformation and Society in 16th-Century Europe (2)
Owen Chadwick, The Reformation
Kurt Reinhardt (Protestant?), Germany: 2000 Years
William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
August W. Hunzinger, Die Theol. der Gegenwart

Did Martin Luther Regard the (Roman) Catholic Church as a Non-Christian, Apostate Institution?: Featuring dozens of citations from Luther's own writings; particularly On the Councils and the Churches (1539) and Against Hans Wurst (1541) 74K

Primary Luther Sources

Luther's Works (LW): Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage (1541); Vol. 41 (19 citations; many quite lengthy)

Philadelphia Edition of Luther's works (PE): On the Councils and the Churches (1539). Vol. V: pp. 133-136, 264-265, 269, 272, 276-277, 284, 286, 289-292

Preserved Smith (PS), The Life and Letters of Martin Luther: letter to Philip Melanchthon at Schmalkalden: April 8, 1540
PS: letter to Philip Melanchthon at Ratisbon, April 4, 1541
PS: Pamphlet: How to Anoint a Right Christian Bishop, January, 1542
PS: Luther's First Will: Gotha, February 28, 1537
PS: Letter to Montanus About Erasmus, May 28, 1529

William Hazlitt, translator, Table-Talk (14)

Mark U. Edwards, Jr.: Luther's Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531-1546 (extensive citations from Luther)

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Charles M. Jacobs (translator and editor of PE)
Mark U. Edwards, Jr.: Luther's Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531-1546 (extensive citations)

Did Martin Luther Believe That Jesus Had Carnal Relations With Mary Magdalene and Others? 70K

Primary Luther Sources

LW: Table-Talk (Spring 1532), Vol. 54
LW: Lectures on Galatians (1535), Vol. 26

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) Q & A page
Jaroslav Pelikan, in LW
Concordia Historical Institute (personal correspondence)
"Luther Quest Discussion Group" (6 citations)

Martin Luther the "Super-Pope" and de facto Infallibility: With Extensive Documentation From Luther's Own Words 68K

Primary Luther Sources

LW: Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called (July 1522) -- very extensive citation, from Vol. 39: pp. 247-249, 252-253, 262-263, 268-269, 273, 278-280, 283.

PE: An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull (1521), Vol. III, pp. 12-14, 17
PE: Reply to the Answer of the Leipzig Goat (1521), Vol. III, pp. 293-294

Cited in Will Durant (WD), The Reformation: Against the Falsely So-Called Spiritual Estate of the Pope and Bishops (July 1522)
WD: miscellaneous

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Thomas Babington Macaulay

"The Ambiguous Relationship of Luther and the Early Protestants to St. Augustine" 55K

Primary Luther Sources

Table-Talk (translated by William Hazlitt) (3)
Edwin Tait: translation of a letter by Philip Melanchthon to Johann Brenz (May 1531), agreed-to by Luther

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Julius Kostlin, Martin Luther. Sein Leben und seine Schriften (2)
Michael J. Vlach, reviewing Alister E. McGrath's book, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (lengthy citation)
(http://www.theologicalstudies.org/mcgrath1.html)
Ted M. Dorman, "Justification as Healing: The Little-Known Luther," in online journal Quodlibet (lengthy citation, which includes a citation from Luther's Commentary on Galatians)
(http://www.quodlibet.net/dorman-luther.shtml)
Book of Concord (all mentions of St. Augustine looked up)

Was Corruption in the Medieval Papacy the Primary Cause of the Protestant Revolt? 44K

Primary Luther Sources

LW: Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called (July 1522), Vol. 39

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Preserved Smith, Reformation in Europe (2)
Owen Chadwick, The Reformation (2)

"Man-Centered" Sacramentalism: The Remarkable Incoherence of Dr. James White: How Can Martin Luther and St. Augustine Be Christians According to His Definition? 42K

Primary Luther Sources

LW: The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Vol. 36
LW: Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Chapters 1-4 (1540); Vol. 22 (2)
LW: Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525); Vol. 40
LW: unspecified utterance on the Eucharist; Vol. 37; cited by Paul Althaus
LW: Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament (September 1544); Vol. 38
Large Catechism (1529); translated by Dr. Lenker, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1935

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther
Roland Bainton, Here I Stand
Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation

The Irrational Antipathy of Luther, Calvin, and Other Protestants to Clerical Celibacy 42K

Primary Luther Sources

LW: The Estate of Marriage (1522); Vol. 45
PE: On the Councils and the Churches (1539); Vol. V

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

None

"Contraception and the 'Fewer Children is Better' Mentality: the Opposition of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Other Protestants" 35K

Primary Luther Sources

LW: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44 (1544); Vol. 7
LW: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5 (1536); Vol. 1
LW: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 26-30; Vol. 5
LW: The Estate of Marriage (1522); Vol. 45
Cited by Ewald W. Plass, What Luther Says, an Anthology

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

None

2 Corinthians 5:21: Was Jesus Christ Literally Made Sin on the Cross? Did He Suffer the Horrors of Damnation? Luther and Calvin vs. the Church Fathers 29K

Primary Luther Sources

LW: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44 (1544); Vol. 7
Commentary on Galatians, translated by Erasmus Middleton (3)

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (2)

Martin Luther's Doctrine Concerning Good Works: Have I Misrepresented It? 24K

Primary Luther Sources

LW: The Freedom of a Christian (1520); Vol. 44 (9)
LW: unspecified (on faith and works); Vol. 31

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (2)

Dialogue: Martin Luther the "Super-Pope," de facto Infallibility, and Protestant Tradition: A Philosophical and Analogical "Turning the Tables" Argument in Reply to Certain Protestant Rhetoric Against the Papacy 23K

Primary Luther Sources

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

None, as it was a discussion with Edwin Tait about the related, documented paper above.

The Orthodox vs. the Heterodox Luther 15K

Primary Luther Sources

(derived from Catholic Hartmann Grisar)

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

None

"Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary " 14K

Primary Luther Sources

LW: Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539); Vol. 22 (2)
LW: That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523); Vol. 45 (2)

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of all Christians
J.A. Ross MacKenzie
Jaroslav Pelikan, in LW

Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary 12K

Primary Luther Sources

LW: Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, (1539); Vol. 22 (3)
PE: On the Councils and the Church (1539); Vol. V

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

None

Baptismal Regeneration: Luther, Wesley, and Anglicanism 6K

Primary Luther Sources

LW:The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520); Vol. 36
Large Catechism (1529); translated by Dr. Lenker, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1935

Secondary Protestant or Otherwise Not Known Catholic Scholarly Sources

None

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 24 February 2004.

My Alleged Pathetic Martin Luther Research, Luther-Bashing and "Dishonesty"

I posted the following on the Catholic Message Board on 2-23-04 after discovering that someone (a Lutheran, as it turns out) was trying to discredit my Luther research yet again. This person's ("CommonMan") words will be in blue. The words of "walt" -- another detractor (but much less insulting) will be in red. Since this charge has come up more than once, and there is never any substance to it, I thought it was high time to put it to rest once and for all.

* * * * *

I reserve the right to post occasionally -- as an exception to my self-imposed "rule" -- when someone is falsely portraying my work or myself, and the need for clarification exists, since I am a published apologist, whose writing is used by others in defense of Catholic doctrines, and have once again been (rather ridiculously) accused of incompetence and dishonesty.

The following is very long, tedious and boring, to be sure, but if any of you (particularly Catholics) have heard of me, or read or otherwise used my writing (especially concerning Luther) here and elsewhere for research, apologetics, or evangelism purposes, and are tired of hearing charges made about my writing, methodology, "dishonesty," "profound bias" and what-not, then please stick it out, because you are in for some real enlightenment as to the sort of sham charges an apologist has to deal with, and concerning the unsavory methods used to run down a person when their arguments are unable to be defeated by force of argument, logic, and fact. It's a sad tale indeed, but quite revealing. This will put these sort of asinine tactics on record, at least where I am concerned.

If people don't personally attack me (almost always "behind my back" initially), then they attack those who cite my work, like beng, and they are accused (either subtly or not-so-subtly) of being slavish sycophants who hang on my every word and don't check out the accuracy of my research because I am their "hero" and "champion" and so forth.

This stinks, and it is time to speak out against it. If people look up to me on these boards, then I am humbled and honored and glad to be of service. I've certainly worked hard enough (and usually for little or no money) so it is rewarding on a human level to receive a bit of "recognition" (and I thank those of you who have made kind and nice comments about my work, from the bottom of my heart. May God bless you).

Some people may occasionally inadvertantly distort my argument in some fashion, or miss some of the nuances and qualifications. They're human beings. They need to be cut some slack. People are at different levels in their theological and "apologetic" development. We're all in the process of learning and growing. But if the charge is that they are wrong mainly because my work is not worthy enough to be cited in the first place, and is mere "propaganda," then the critics need to lay off and get the guts and courage to come to me and make their case, rather than gossip and snipe in public and run off at the mouth about things they know little about.

The latest instances of this nonsense come from "Common Man" and "walt". Common Man has implied that I am deliberately dishonest (or darn close to it, at any rate) in how I present Luther on my website, and in how I edited a recent exchange here with walt, for my blog. He has stated recently that virtually all my Luther citations are "out of context" and that they are absurdly, cynically selective, and thus, in effect, unfair to Luther. Along with the usual poppycock charges, he seems to believe that I cannot possibly be fair to Luther (nor does he -- far as I can tell -- think I wish to be) simply because I am a Catholic apologist; thus severely-biased, by definition (thus, he called my work mere "spin").

Common Man was essentially reprimanded by two moderators on this board (Signum Crucis and Della) for resort to personal attack (for which I am thankful: good job!). To crown the absurdity of his attacks, he plainly admitted that he knows fairly little about Luther himself. But by some weird, convoluted reasoning (unfathomable to me, I confess), he nevertheless "knows" that I (who have studied the man for twenty years: both as a Protestant and as a Catholic) cannot be trusted in dealing with Luther.

I challenged Common Man to produce any specific, concrete example of my distortion of Luther. Of course, he has not done so, and I won't hold my breath waiting, either. So his prattling on and on was much ado about nothing. When challenged, he didn't have any goods to produce. And of course this is nothing new. The tactic is as old as the hills. This is the sort of insulting behavior and "intellectual bullying" tactics (and even calling it "intellectual" is a big stretch) that constitute much of the reason why I have become completely disgusted with discussion boards. It was heartening, at least, to see two moderators condemn it.

Here are some examples of Common Man's insulting and uncharitable rhetoric and falsehoods on this board (I know from experience that if I don't document this sort of thing, it will be denied or distorted later on and come back to "haunt" me, so here it is):

As to the quotes from Luther, I found no context on the Armstrong site (pity) and I would prefer to read them in context so I will look to do so later today. There are a couple of claims (not quotes) I am familiar with and I will also respond to them.

Of course if this is to be a "quote fest" we could bury each other in quotes all day and that is a bore.

(Jan 16, 2004 6:32 am Subject: Luther Dialogue)

The initial point I was making was that as a Lutheran, my church history is as connected now as when I was a Catholic . . .

I meant what I said about a "quote fest". Shall I start dragging out quotes from Catholic leaders out of context? If I paste some quote from another site and we don’t have the ability to read the surrounding text why quote it? There are pages of complete books of Luther theology available on-line from which to pull a quote so that it can be checked. If any one has a link to Against the Falsely So-Called Spiritual Estate of the Pope and Bishops, where these quotes came from, then that would be fine to post and refer to. Luther was a prodigious writer and I don’t pretend to be a Luther scholar who has read all his works.

(Jan 16, 2004 9:35 am Subject: Luther Dialogue)

. . . you posted the quotes knowing Luther wrote it but not the context nor reason behind it, and Armstrong was light on the facts too. It was meant to inflame, not inform.

(1-17-04, 4:30 PM)

If I tell you why Luther wrote Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called why would you accept my explanation when Armstrong already has you convinced otherwise?

Clever how Armstrong never mentions Leo at all in that page you cited. That is because Armstrong wants you to think Luther is writing to the Church of Christ when in fact he is addressing Leo.

(1-18-04, 2:11 PM)

[The paper where I cite this tract at length was about how Luther claimed an extraordinary authority that I have described as "super-pope." Whomever he was addressing, it contains statements about himself that are not undercut based on who he was writing to. See: Martin Luther the "Super-Pope" and de facto Infallibility (With Extensive Documentation From Luther's Own Words). I cite straight from LW, volume 39, at great length, so there can be no charge of "out of context." The remarks themselves have to be seen to be believed.

CommonMan claims that it was written to Pope Leo but the very title disproves that. It is against the "spiritual estate" of both pope and bishops. That's not just the pope! In the first line, Luther writes: "To the papal bishops [I offer] my service and self-understanding in Christ." It is addressed to a plurality throughout, not to the pope: "dear lords," "any one of you," "Even though you might take my life, since you are murderers," etc. (LW, 39, 247-248). And he refers to the pope in the third person; e.g,: "The pope, to be sure, in his canon law forbade punishing the prelates" (p. 249). So CommonMan is absolutely wrong (while he mocks me for my supposed deception and inaccuracy). The introduction in LW, by Eric and Ruth Gritsch, knows nothing of this "written to the pope" theory, either. It never claims that it was written to the pope (who is only mentioned briefly for contextual background), but it says plenty about Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, and then it is noted that "Luther turned to a general attack on the 'papistic' establishment" (p. 244). So much for both CommonMan's theory and bogus charge against me.]

. . . Beng has found many a Luther quote on a few Catholic apologist web sites and that seems to be the primary source of his information, he refers to them often. He jumped into the conversation on Jan. 12 with an armful of quotes from Dave Armstrong. I have since found other sites using nearly the same information. Like a rubber stamp, these individuals have presented these (mostly out of context) quotes to skew the opinion of those who have only a superficial understanding of Luther. Not that my knowledge of him is great, but I have a better picture of the man and his times than can be gleaned from an apologist site.

The quote I asked about was an incomplete paragraph Beng posted. I expect the intention of posting that quote was to make the reader think Luther had flip-flopped . . .

. . . the fact that he never mailed this letter speaks volumes on the honesty of any web site who uses this to try to make their point. Shame shame, they seem to have forgotten the 9th commandment . . . .

(1-20-04, 6:47 am)

[Yet about a month later, CommonMan denies having insulted me:

You said I insulted you. Well I did find my specific remarks and I don't think that is a fair assessment [he cited other remarks that I have not used here, in my documentation] . . . I did clearly state that your page was designed to show Luther in a negative light. It is biased and you admit that you are biased. I do think it's unfortunate that that page is the sum total of many a readers knowledge. So I try to give another view point, again, if that offends you I don't understand how.

(post of 2-19-04, 11:26 PM, in the "New Book About Martin Luther" thread)

I had written in my first post on the board in the same thread (2-19-04, 8:54 PM):

This nonsense about me being a dishonest researcher with regard to Martin Luther has been tried before; notably by one gentleman . . . who tried to "argue" (as you have) that mere use of ellipses implied dishonesty and quoting out of context.

. . . You wanna prove I am dishonest or incompetent as an apologist -- particularly with regard to Martin Luther? Be my guest. Come to my blog, present your case (that is assuming that it exists in the first place, and consists of more than gratuitous potshots in public venues such as this), and we will have a public discussion, and I will put it all on my website. Otherwise, please desist in making public charges that you cannot back up when the person who is the object of your unfounded criticisms challenges you.

But CommonMan denied having made any of these charges up to this point (i.e., after his remarks I have documented, above). The next day, he reiterated:

If anyone can tell me how he was "dissed" and how I "insulted him" and called him "dishonest", please provide those quotes where I say that. Or is this just more DA spin?

(see larger post and URL information, below)

It is seen below that he again accuses me of deliberate dishonesty based on how I edited the exchange with walt. Either CommonMan has a very faulty memory, or he talks out of both sides of his mouth, depending on his audience, or he thinks that questioning one's "honesty" or charging a professional, published apologist (whose reputation is based on good, solid research) with "mostly out of context" quotes or falsely accusing them of violating the 9th commandment is not an "insult." Any way one looks at it, it stinks to high heaven. It's merely yet another person who can't control his tongue, where it concerns theological opponents, and has to sadly resort to (essentially) public gossip, as opposed to writing to the person being critiqued, and inquiring about perceived "difficulties" in his work -- precisely as two board moderators later urged CommonMan to do]

Unfortunately you have a one sided view. I agree with the posts above, you could use a more objective source for your information.

(Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:30 pm Subject: Luther Dialogue)

. . . the paragraph posted here did not indicate to me that his writing [i.e., Hilaire Belloc's] would be any more factual than the Dave Armstrong quotes I read here.

(1-30-04)

The quotes from Dave Armstrong's web page are not going to give you a complete understanding of Luther, Tetzel, Leo X ,the times they lived in or even a basis for understanding the split. His site is simply a very one sided biased look at a tiny portion of it all. Designed to paint Luther in as negative a way as possible.

I do not expect you to take as much of an interest in Luther as I do, but at least go a little deeper than Dave Armstrong.

(2-16-04, 10:23 PM)

I did not say that Armstrong's site was not Luther quotes, I said it was a tiny tiny portion. Picked over, culled from tens of thousands of words either written by, or written about Luther.

In truth you don't want to learn the whole story. That's your choice, but I would have more respect for your opinion if you had more substance in your argument. You won't find substance in a web page and it comes through when you speak about the Reformation and Luther.

(2-17-04, 6:21 AM)

[beng]: "Does it matter that they are picked over? Does that make them out of context or not true?"

YES IT MATTERS VERY MUCH!

It's SPIN dear Beng! And you are spinning in it's wake. Context of the document, context of the times. All this does matter!

Luther spoke in colorful terms. Look at this one [from my website];

Most Holy Father, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, I offer myself with all that I am and have . . . I will acknowledge thy voice as the voice of Christ.

(Letter to Pope Leo X, May 30, 1518)

What are those ellipses? what's missing? Don't you wonder?

(2-17-04, 6:11 PM)

DA [me] "First of all, I will not be staying because I don't participate on boards anymore " [followed by an icon of a person crying]

Oh well walt, I guess you aren't going to get your answer.

Of course his snippets from Luther will show up here by the efforts of others time and again anyway so he may be gone but not forgotten.

If anyone can tell me how he was "dissed" and how I "insulted him" and called him "dishonest", please provide those quotes where I say that. Or is this just more DA spin?

(2-20-04, 12:29 PM)

I would like to hear your comments on Armstrong's posting of the dialog between walt and Armstrong.

Armstrong posted it on his blog, and in the process edited the conversation leaving out part of walt's words with no indication that he had done so. He changed the dialog to make it appear more favorable to him.

(2-21-04, 2:51 PM)

. . . Armstrong himself admitted he was biased so my mention of it is in accord with his own words and I think it's a fair assessment.

Beng sends me to a page that calls Luther a "super pope" and it is filled with negative Luther quotes (no context) is meant to give the reader a negative opinion.

. . . Luther wrote and his words appear in volumes and volumes of books comprising tens of thousands of words. It's fair to say there is but a tiny percentage of Luther's words on Armstrong's website.

Beng told me context did not matter. I said it did and the page he sent me to was spin. If it isn't spin then what is that page for?

Finally, walt exposed him. Armstrong recognized that walt has a much deeper knowledge of Luther and he had a dialog with him and was forced to adjust his explanation, then upon posting it on his blog, edited and tweaked it to make it appear more favorable. He, by his own actions, proved my point about missing words replaced with ellipses. In this case, he did not even add the ellipses.

I am not arguing about Luther here what I am arguing is that I think Armstrong received a pass because he is a local hero.

(2-21-04, 4:04 PM)

At this point, moderators Signum Crucis and Della both rendered their opinion on CommonMan's remarks within a half-hour:

. . . CommonMan, we don't want to promote what might be construed as a personal attack against another poster. We have no control over Dave Armstrong or any other professional apologist. That's why it is best to confront him personally.

Professional or not, we do believe that a person is accountable for his words/actions. We don't necessarily condone every word or action just because a poster is Catholic or a professional. We do believe in going to the source for clarification or complaint. That includes interaction between posters on here as well. If I have a problem with something you say, I'm going to confront you with it, not the other Protestant members of the board . . .

(2-21-04, 4:29 PM)

The topic thread started out as if it was about generalities but when asked to be specific, it became a complaint against a member who rarely posts here, and who is perfectly capable of answering for himself.

On the msg board we haven't encouraged topic threads about the "failings" of other members. We have always been encouraged to simply respond to whatever is posted, and if it is personal, to contact either the other person via PM or email or contact one of the moderators with any complaints about fellow board members.

(2-21-04, 4:29 PM)

CommonMan didn't respond on this thread, but -- undaunted -- continued on with his personal attacks and charges that I dishonestly edited and was "deliberately deceptive" and supposedly have a "limited understanding of Luther's teachings":

Walt's conversation with this person was edited on the "blog".

This person removed part of the conversation and posted it with no indication that he had edited it.

No one on this board seems to care and they have chosen to ignore this dishonest ploy. So be it.

Walt exposed him as having a limited understanding of Luther's teachings. Anyone who cares to use this person as a source for arguing Luther should do so at their own risk. For the foundation of his knowledge and thus their argument, is weak.

(2-21-04, 9:35 PM)

In this case the editing did "twist" Walt's words around and as Walt explained above and leads the reader to a different conclusion. That is not proper editing.

Now, is it deliberately deceptive editing or is it accidentally deceptive editing? I dare not say lest it cause ranting. Maybe you can answer that Beng.

(2-21-04, 11:14 PM)

The real reason I want to preserve your quote is for my new hobby, collecting quotes so as to use them out of context in future discussions. [smiley face icon]

(Feb 22, 2004 6:00 pm Subject: The Bible Is Corrupt)

Thanks for the Biblical links. I like that because it helps me to learn and think a bit, always refer to the Scripture and I'll check it out, better than the apoligists [sic] page anyday.

(Feb 23, 2004 6:01 pm Subject: I need help to this question !!!)

Walt (though much less insulting than Common Man) thought that I didn't understand an elementary distinction with regard to works being placed in the category of sanctification rather than justification, and moaned and groaned about my editing of his words (even though I provided the URL to the relevant thread on this board so that people could read the original exchange for themselves).

He repeatedly refers to me as an "apologist" (i.e., in quotes), and to "apologetics", as if there is some intrinsic pretense involved, or as if I ought to be ashamed of my full-time vocation as a published apologist who has three books out (soon to be four), and one of the three most-visited Catholic apologetics websites on the Internet (along with Catholic Answers and Envoy). Why else would he put the word in quotes? Does he habitually put the words baker or banker or professor or cashier in quotes when he refers to those professions or occupations?

I asked him if he would be willing to dialogue about Luther on my blog and he refused. That offer is still in force. I removed his words from my blog and the paper I wrote as a result of our recent discussion because he kept complaining about it -- NOT because I did anything wrong or unethical. People can differ on how to edit these posts. It's no big deal. See: Martin Luther's Doctrine Concerning Good Works: Have I Misrepresented It? Walt wrote on the board:

I don't understand why you do not, as a matter of routine, verify (and cite) your quotations of Luther in the standard English editition of Luther's Works; LW is, for English speakers, the most complete, and the most readily available, edition of Luther's works; references to out-of-print editions, none of which are as complete as LW, are not terribly helpful.

[This is interesting, since many Luther scholars do not follow walt's advice that he seems to think is self-evident. So, for example, Roland Bainton's famous biography of Luther, Here I Stand (1950), was written in English seven years after the last volume of the six-volume Philadelphia edition of Luther's works came out, yet he never cites that work. He relies exclusively on the German editions of Luther's writings. Does walt think the average English reader had ready access to those?

Likewise, Gordon Rupp's well-known Luther's Progress to the Diet of Worms, published in 1951, utilized the Philadephia edition occasionally, but stuck mostly to the German editions. Moreover, in Luther: Early Theological Works, edited and translated by James Atkinson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), the editor writes on page 365: "All references to the
Luther text are made to the Weimar text, volume, page, line, and where significant to the title and
date of the work cited." This tendency holds even for recent English books about Luther. Alister McGrath's Luther's Theology of the Cross (1985), relies exclusively on German Luther sources, long after the 55-volume English edition became available. And David Steinmetz' Luther in Context (1995; 2nd edition, 2002) is still overwhelmingly utilizing the German Weimar edition, with only a rare reference to LW.

I submit that reliance upon German works -- with regard to English readers -- is as "unhelpful" to English readers as citations of the Philadelphia edition or citations from Grisar, Janssen, Durant or anyone who got their material from the German, and whose books -- in the case of the first two -- were themselves translated into English. The important thing is to use primary material from Luther. I use LW extensively, but this is no absolute requirement for Luther research, or else the above five works by reputable Protestant scholars are all immediately suspect.]

The first mark of good "apologetics" is good scholarship; the absence of good scholarship provides, not "apologetics," but propaganda.

(2-20-04, 9:39 AM)

If "Catholic apologists" want to study Lutheran "heresies," start with the one work of Luther which practically all Lutherans have actually studied and read -- the Small Catechism -- and not with those works of Luther of which most Lutherans have not heard, and fewer still have actually read.

(2-21-04, 9:10 PM)

Unless an "apologist" is nothing more than an antiquarian, he should be addressing what Lutherans today actually believe.

[of course I have done so, in papers about confessional Lutheranism, in whole or in part]

. . . If you're a history buff, by all means study the Arians. But the task of an "apologist" is to defend (or explain) the teachings and practices of his faith community against (or to) those who are really existing outside of his faith community now, not to hypothetical persons, or persons of the past.

. . . Perhaps the problem is in the definition of "apologetics"; I take "apologetics" to mean "systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)". Thus, the task for a Catholic "apologist" is an affirmative one: to defend the Catholic faith, not to refute alternatives. For this, one of the resources for a Catholic "apologist" is John Paul II's Catechism of the Catholic Church.

(2-21-04, 9:57 PM)

[in another post dated 2-21-04, 10:54 PM -- at the same URL -- , walt continued using quotation marks: five times: "apologist" and twice: "apologetics"]

[T]he "apologist" has to deal with real people, who have real ideas. Demolishing straw men may be a lot of fun, but it serves no "apologetic" purpose to demolish that which your conversation partner doesn't believe in anyway. Beyond that, it's counterproductive; the "apologist's" target audience is going to be completely alientated if the "apologist" insists that he believes something which in fact he does not.

(2-21-04, 11:23 PM)

One tires of all this very quickly. It is only the latest manifestation of illegitimate attacks on my research pertaining to Luther. I guess some folks simply don't like to see dissenting opinions being rendered and supported. When it comes to Martin Luther, who is a hero to many (he used to be mine as well, so I perfectly understand this), some Protestants don't want to read any negative criticisms, no matter how well-documented or balanced they might be.

And faced with that "threatening" situation, the all-too-common recourse is to "attack the messenger" and engage in the ad hominem fallacy. If the facts can't be gotten over, then the "next best thing" is to attack the notorious "anti-Luther" Catholic (gasp!!!) apologist (even BIGGER GASP!!!) Dave Armstrong and pretend as if he doesn't know the slightest thing about his subjects. Mostly -- but not always -- these attacks come from anti-Catholics (i.e., those who deny that the Catholic Church is a Christian institution, just as Protestant denominations are). Their motivation is obvious and need not be discussed.

The remarkable, almost surreal history of these attacks makes for depressing, tragi-comic reading. One famous example was from a guy who goes by the moniker "BJ Bear." The exchange took place on the (very large) Protestant CARM board in 2002. His charge was the usual "you can't be trusted with Luther citations because you are incompetent and too biased." He made one particular accusation that I had deliberately botched a Luther quote with ellipses (. . . . ) that encompassed 25 pages in the primary source. This was trumpeted about (quite condescendingly and triumphantly) as proof positive of my grossly-inadequate research skills. This lie is repeated to this day in some quarters because they are so desperate to prove me wrong on something. Yet I have refuted it publicly two or three times now. The answer to the charge is very simple. I have written about it elsewhere, as follows:

"BJ Bear" had made the following blast against me because of this notorious "false quote":

Propaganda isn't as effective when specific references are given. The severe editing of the text in the original post and the following commentary betrays an incredible lack of understanding and/or deliberate bias. Using your style of citation and interpretation an atheist can easily prove that the Bible teaches there never was a god. Using your method it would go like this, "In the beginning ... There is no god ... You are gods."

I responded in [another] paper:

The entire discussion was about a quote in one of my papers that was from Luther. "BJ" complained that it deleted large portions of material that he found in the 55-volume version of the words under consideration in Luther's Works in English. He argued / insinuated that because I didn't include ellipses [i.e., . . . ], and because there were several pages of material in-between, that I was therefore incompetent and had not the slightest clue of how to document information.

Well, it turned out that the mistake was not mine at all, but, in fact, that of Will Durant, the noted historian and author of the well-known multi-volume Story of Civilization (from which I got my quote). As far as I can tell (though it is speculative), it turned on the fact that he was citing a German version of Luther's writings, which differed from the English version of that particular excerpt. I take it as uncontroversial that I, as a non-academic lay apologist, can cite a professional historian . . . and trust that he has checked out the primary sources, and so forth. Since Durant made this egregious mistake that "BJ Bear" made so much of, this only goes to show that either the German version of Luther's words was different (in which case it wouldn't be a "mistake" at all, but a case of differing versions) or that professional historians make mistakes in citation (which I already knew, as they are human beings like the rest of us).

But did this error (or differing translation) prove (following my opponent's convoluted reasoning) that Will Durant suffered from "an incredible lack of understanding and/or deliberate bias"? I think not. After I pointed these inconvenient facts out, "BJ Bear" understandably went rather silent . . . His task was to embarrass me and show me up as an incompetent boob, not to do that to the secularist historian Will Durant (who wasn't exactly an "RC apologist")! The amusement of such folly and comic turn of events more than made up for the offensiveness of the false charge . . . readers can make up their own mind as to who is failing to attain a certain level of "scholarly respectability" and refraining from "hostility and ad hominem."

So much for this charge. Needless to say, "BJ Bear" has not responded to this reply. He knows better, by now. Elsewhere, he described another Luther paper of mine as follows:

"misleads" [implied: possibly deliberately and deviously, or simply through incompetence]
"misinforms" [ditto]
"ignorant of primary source material" [sheer intellectual and apologetic incompetence]
"absurdity of the 'analysis' above" [derisive use of quotation marks]
"illogical and baseless 'analysis'" [ditto]
[failure to do a] "competent reading of the primary source" [charge of basic incompetence]
"Propaganda is not effective when proper citations are given" [mere "propaganda" rather than legitimate respectable research]
"Not interested in what Luther wrote but interested in propaganda" [ditto]

But of course these are all just statements -- easy to make; much harder to substantiate and prove. Another bogus charge is that I "hate" Martin Luther. I do not, of course (quite the contrary: I admire him in many ways) and I have made that clear in several papers. I don't think he was an evil man and I don't question his sincerity or religious motivations. Beyond that, I have essentially defended him in several papers against false charges, notably, in the following:

Martin Luther's Violent, Inflammatory Rhetoric and its Relationship to the German
Peasants' Revolt (1524-1525)

Did Martin Luther Believe That Jesus Had Carnal Relations With Mary Magdalene
and Others?

In fact, in my recent exchange with walt about Luther's view of good works, I (in effect) defended Luther from the all-too-common charge that he denies the necessity of good works. I had already been doing that for years, as I showed walt, including in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. On my blog recently, I did so again, in response to a Catholic who didn't understand some fine points of Luther's view. Furthermore, I often cite Luther favorably when he agrees with the Catholic position, as in several papers about his Mariology, and his views on the Eucharist and baptismal regeneration.

In my upcoming book, The Catholic Verses, I cite him at length in opposition to contraception and deliberately childless marriages (where he makes some marvelous and dead-on observations, with his characteristic passion and zeal and eloquence). When Luther is right about something he is brilliantly right, and I happily regard him as my ally at those points.

Some people realize that I am doing this, and then I get accused of being hypocritical, since I disagree with Luther in one place and agree with him in another, as if this is somehow inexplicably improper. LOL You can't win for losing. Why can't these critics see that I am simply after the truth, wherever it lies? I think Luther got some things wrong and some things right. This is some incredible, incomprehensible phenomenon?

Another tack has been to say that, well okay, I may not be outright dishonest or incompetent in researching Luther (begrudging admissions that maybe I do know a thing or two after all, even though I am a lowly Catholic), but nevertheless I rely excessively on "anti-Luther" Catholic biographers, such as Hartmann Grisar, S.J. (author of a six-volume biography of Luther: the largest I have ever seen).

This was pointed out in print as early as 1994, by Ralph Mackenzie, co-author with Norman Geisler of the helpful book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. He reviewed my conversion story (and the others) in Surprised by Truth, and we talked on the phone once. He is not an anti-Catholic. Neither is Edwin Tait, a doctoral candidate in Church history, with whom I have had several enjoyable dialogues. But Edwin made the same charge recently. I decided that I had heard this enough (when I get fed up it tends to motivate me to disprove the bogus claims in writing), and wrote a paper about it, proving it was unfair and inaccurate: My Alleged Excessive Reliance on Catholic Luther Biographer, Hartmann Grisar, S.J.

Yet Edwin -- always the gentleman and scholar -- admitted in that exchange: "I have not read Grisar." And after looking over my documentation of my use of Grisar, he confessed:

Okay; point taken. My subjective impression was that Grisar seemed to come up a lot. But I admit that probably discussions I've had with you have blurred into discussions I've had with other Catholics online.

And he wrote:

Also, I'd like to compliment you on your essay on Luther and the Peasant Wars. It's a lot more nuanced than what I remember seeing on your site previously on this subject (though again, this may be more about how people used your site than what you actually said).

He also stated in correspondence, "You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there." But Edwin is fair, a serious thinker, and he doesn't have an axe to grind (unlike my harshest critics). He thinks I have a bias, for sure, but he also believes I am a competent and charitable apologist. I respect Edwin Tait, because he has sought to be fair and thoughtful in his disagreements with me.

This is all I ask: that if a person disagrees with my Luther research, to show me why, and to engage in normal, congenial, non-insulting, substantive discussion about it, without the stupid, false charges which poison the well from the outset (in other words, rudimentary Christian ethics and normal intellectual discourse). I've also had several constructive dialogues about Luther with Edwin Tait. Yes, we continue to disagree, but I am not presently writing about disagreement; rather, about fairness and how to make a genuine critique which deserves to be taken seriously, with respect, and the avoidance of ad hominem absurdity and juvenile, sub-Christian behavior.

Another charge (repeated by Common Man) is the old canard about "quoting out of context" (always ready at hand when someone wants to dismiss a piece of evidence without having to do any serious work of refutation). But this cannot be disproven in an overview such as this. It has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Again, only very rarely has anyone actually sought to demonstrate this with concrete example. Anyone is welcome to try. I challenge them, dare them, beg them to "put up or shut up." There is nothing to the charge. If someone is confident enough to produce some sort of rational argument along these lines, I will either refute the objection as groundless and at odds with the facts, or gratefully make a retraction.

My latest response to the same old same old, is a demonstration of the amount and nature of documentation in my Luther papers (some 25 or so now). For each paper, I listed the number of citations from Luther himself and from Protestant scholars (i.e., directly concerning Luther -- some papers have a wider subject matter), and noted the sources. I didn't even include Catholic scholars (even when they cite Luther's own words) because hostile critics (again, predominantly the anti-Catholic Protestants, as opposed to the fair-minded ecumenical ones) simply dismiss them as incorrigibly biased against Luther and therefore untrustworthy. This is not true, of course, but I am trying to think as these people do, and make an argument most effective for the purpose of countering their false (and often personally slanderous) charges.

If Common Man or walt or anyone else wants to have a normal dialogue about anything in my papers (actually about the subject at hand, rather than me and my supposedly terrible, scandalous methodology), they are welcome to do so on my blog. In the meantime, the charges have been soundly refuted yet again, and those here and elsewhere who cite my work can feel confident that they are not relying on a raving lunatic with an axe to grind about Luther, but a serious, credentialed, published lay apologist who profusely documents his contentions, tries very hard to be fair-minded, and is thoroughly willing to entertain rational critiques. When this nonsense comes up again, they can refer to the following paper (and this present one), to counter it:

"Does My Luther Research Lack Proper Documentation? (Particularly Regarding Primary Material From the 55-volume Luther's Works?)"

Nothing like facts and actual solid reasoning. They will trump innuendo, gossip, and potshots, and absurdly broad and general comments any time (made by people who often admit they don't know what they're talking about, either openly, or by the implication of their inability or unwillingness to back themselves up with something solid, when challenged).

This paper can be used when these dumb and utterly unfounded charges are raised the next time here or anywhere, and someone knows about my reply, that can be alluded to, which (hopefully) will stop the coming bogus, sham charges dead in their tracks and get the conversation back onto the issues and theology where it belongs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Walt responded in the thread that I started on the Catholic Message Board (with the above message -- slightly different): "My Alleged Lousy Luther Research & 'Dishonesty'",

His response was from 2-23-04, 6:43 PM.

But this is 2004, not 1950, and LW was completed in its print version almost 20 years ago, and is now available on a [*relatively* inexpensive] CD-ROM.

I generally cannot afford $174 for such a work (which is the cost I heard). Perhaps one day when I have some extra money I will buy that. As it is I have 13 volumes of the set in hardcover, that I was blessed to be able to get for $1.50 - $2.00 each at a used book sale, plus various other individual primary works of Luther. I have what I need to write a decent paper. If I need more, I go to the local Catholic seminary (as I have done several times for the more involved of my Luther papers).

Why is it, though, that (as I already pointed out) Alister McGrath's Luther's Theology of the Cross (1985), relies exclusively on German Luther sources, and David Steinmetz' Luther in Context (1995; 2nd edition, 2002) almost all German sources? It's amazing how you selectively quote, so as to make your opponent's argument look incoherent. But it is not succeeding. I cited five works: three of which were after LW came out (one was from 1962). With the other two I specifically used the direct analogy of them not utilizing the Philadephia six-volume edition, which was the best one in English then available, to my knowledge.

Roland Bainton, in his Studies on the Reformation (1963) is still using all German sources. Same thing for the famous Young Man Luther (1958), by Erik Erikson. What's with these guys? Didn't they know that the English set had come out?

I would note that when Martin Brecht’s three-volume biography of Luther was translated from German into English, references to LW were added to Brecht’s citation of the WA. References to LW were also added to the English translation of Bernard Lohse’s Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development.

And I would note that when Heiko A. Oberman's well-regarded Luther: Man Between God and the Devil was translated from German into English in 1990 (Yale University Press), references to LW were NOT added to Oberman's citation of the WA. You're not gonna succeed in this point. How many counter-examples are necessary? I'm just a lay apologist, not a scholar. I document my contentions more than adequately. I use LW as much as possible (and I am in the process of documenting that now, because of these sorts of charges and "requirements"), but I am maintaining that one need not always cite LW to prove one's point. Certainly this matter has no bearing on "apologetic competence."

I do not regret suggesting that those who are serious about carrying on apologetic conversations with those who are serous about Luther cite the LW, which is readily available to the sincere student or Apologist," and provides a useful common reference point.

Nor do I regret suggesting that the actual Luther scholars quite often do not do so, so why should apologists necessarily do it? The more the better, sure; I just don't think it is any kind of requirement before one can intelligently and substantively discuss Luther at all. Many Protestants of a certain stripe couldn't care less what Catholic scholars (let alone lowly apologists like myself) say about Luther: they will simply dismiss it as biased, no matter how well-documented.

It seems to be a sort of obscurantist game that is played: if you can't show how your opponent has misrepresented Luther, then bring out the usual charges of selectivity, quotes out-of-context, insufficient use of LW, incompetence, unconscionable, outrageous use of Catholic (GASP!) scholars (or older, more "triumphalistic" and "anti-Luther" Catholic scholars) in Luther research, hostile motives, charges of "anti-Protestantism" . . . you're not as bad as most, but you still start to go down the same kind of road.

I stand by what I said: as I understand “apologetics,” its task is to defend and/or explain a religious faith against objections or in response to questions that are actually being raised in the contemporary environment; it is not an historical exercise, and it does not deal in merely hypothetical questions. I freely note that there are many reasons why one might be interested in figures from the past -- including discussions from the past that may have been “apologetic” in their own day (compare my suggestions that historians and apologists alike can profit from a careful study of the Augsburg Confession, the Roman Confuation, and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession).

This is beyond silly, and only shows me that you have only a dim realization of the task and responsibilities of an apologist: be they Catholic, Protestant, or left-handed, green-eyed, red-haired Rastafarian. If you had simply added the word "primarily" after "its task is to" then I would have readily agreed. But as it is you want to be extreme and say the Catholic ought not to deal with Martin Luther at all, or offer critiques of competing views, etc.

Why did St. Augustine write tracts against the Manichees and Donatists and Pelagians, then, rather than simply defend the Catholic Church? Why does Cardinal Ratzinger attack various modernist assumptions in The Ratzinger Report (as does Pope John Paul II in several encyclicals)? Why does Ronald Knox deal with Protestant history in his Enthusiasm, or Louis Bouyer do the same in his apologetic yet simultaneously ecumenical (brilliant) book, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism? Chesterton constantly writes about various aspects of Protestantism; C.S. Lewis goes after scientism, Cardinal Newman critiques the Anglican view of history, etc., etc. Examples are as numerous as the stars in the sky. But somehow you come up with this novel viewpoint. Furthermore, anti-Catholic Protestants are bashing us all the time, often with truly atrocious and inaccurate research. Yet according to you we cannot critique anything in their system . . . all we can do is defend our own beliefs.

I would further note that a Catholic “apologist” whose apologetic interest was defending and/or explaining the Catholic faith to Jews or Muslims would not need any real knowledge of Luther to carry out his task (any more than a Protestant “apologist” addressing the same audience would need any real knowledge of St. Thomas Aquinas to carry out his task.)

First of all, congratulations that you actually slipped and used the word apologetic without using quotation marks. A sign of better things to come in your own "anti-apologetic" . . .

But this is more silliness. I do all sorts of apologetics on my site. I have dialogued with Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses. I was at a gathering of Muslims and Christians a month ago with a Reformed friend of mine, and defended the Holy Trinity (then we had a great time at a restaurant afterwards -- gee, this group of about eight Protestants hate me so much that we had wonderful fellowship. No one punched me out, amazingly enough). I've written two entire books that had no specifically "Catholic" elements in them at all. I debate atheists and Mormons and homosexuals. And to do that, you can't just write about your view; you gotta critique the other side, too. In the meantime, people's faith and confidence in their belief-system gets strengthened (I know because they tell me, in letters). There are more ways than one to skin a cat. The reason I write about Luther is obvious. If you don't get it, many others do.

But that doesn't mean my interest is to bash Luther and lie about him. I'm simply trying to provide a bit of a Catholic viewpoint. All we hear is the Protestant side. It's called "balance" and "fairness" and "hearing both sides of the story." The truth is far more interesting than either the Protestant hagiographical or Catholic demonizing tendencies in dealing with Martin Luther. And that is what I am always after.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I thought CommonMan may have taken his leave of absence from this board, but alas, I found him making several comments recently, including a few still subtly attacking me. The bravado and posturing is greatly tempered, but one can read in-between the lines:

CommonMan (all replies to others):

Enough with the Luther bashing. Just ignore him, he has been dead a long time and his life shouldn't mean a thing to you.

(Feb 23, 2004 6:47 pm Subject: I need help to this question !!!)

Did you forget that Luther was a man? . . .

(Feb 23, 2004 7:51 pm Subject: I Don't Understand Men)

Forget Luther, if someone asks you about him change the subject. He has nothing to do with your faith.

(Feb 23, 2004 8:00 pm Subject: I need help to this question !!!)

I find this utterly fascinating. All of a sudden, (coincidentally) within 90 minutes from the moment I posted my lengthy response to his wholesale distortions of my research, motivations, and actual arguments, CommonMan experiences an extraordinary epiphany and decides that Luther isn't worth talking about anymore. He urges beng to "ignore" and "forget" him because he has been dead for 450 years and his life "shouldn't mean a thing." He is just "a man" (no kidding?). He has nothing to do with anyone's faith.

I'm delighted to see that CommonMan has come to this newfound conclusion about relative importance, since it will do him good to change emphasis and to work on lessening the influence of his obsessions. When I did a search of his name and the subject "Luther" in this forum, it listed 96 matches. That is from January 12th to February 23rd only. So in a mere 42 days, CommonMan mentioned Luther in his posts 96 times, for an average of 2.29 times a day: every day from January 12th till now! But alas, now Luther ought to be forgotten and ignored. At least while I am around, huh? :-)

Since CommonMan now (insofar as I understand him) feels that talking about Luther so much is vanity (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), I was curious to see how many times he mentioned our Lord Jesus Christ, during the same time period. It was 58 times. So he has talked about Jesus only 60% as much as he talked about Luther. And since he has said that Luther had nothing to do with anyone's faith, I wondered how much he has mentioned faith. That came out to a paltry 43, or just over an average of once a day and a mere 45% as much as Luther. And since Luther stressed Bible Alone as the final authority in matters of faith, then clearly CommonMan would follow his advice and talk more about the Bible than a mere man, Luther, right? Wrong! He has mentioned the Bible a pitiful 25 times, or 26% as much as Luther. Something is out of whack here. But since CommonMan has now acknowledged it, we ought to give him great credit.

One can readily see, then, what a revolution this newfound realization will be in CommonMan's day-to-day life. Luther has nothing to do with one's faith; should be forgotten and ignored, yet he has talked about him in the last six weeks more than twice as much as "faith" and almost twice as much as Jesus, and nearly four times as much as the Holy Bible. He mentioned him ten times yesterday alone, or almost four times more than his average frequency. So this will be quite a change. Just in time for Lent . . .

Incidentally, CommonMan (a Lutheran) showed himself factually-challenged yet again and misinformed about Luther's beliefs and actions when he wrote, a month ago:

. . . he was imperfect too. But not all the stuff you have read is true. He was not a fornicator, he was a good father and husband. His language was sometimes enough to make your skin crawl. He was "rough", but not evil. There were Lutherans who took things too far and yes they killed people for their beliefs. Not a good thing, not Luther either.

(Jan 24, 2004 12:17 am Subject: Sorry, we got carried away)

Here is the old myth that Luther (if I read CommonMan right) was not in favor of capital punishment for dissenting doctrinal beliefs (i.e., for other Protestants, not Catholics). That's news to me. Since CommonMan supposedly knows so much more than I do about Luther, how is it that he can be so abysmally ignorant about this easily-verifiable historical question?

How can he know less than the person (yours truly) whom he has described on this board as "light on the facts," lacking a "complete understanding of Luther," and "substance" -- a person so inept in his Luther research that CommonMan urged folks to "go a little deeper" than my website? Life is funny (and very ironic) sometimes . . .

Luther, in fact, regarded Anabaptists as seditious (worse than the dreaded, evil Catholics) and sanctioned capital punishment in their case, most notably in his Commentary on the 82nd Psalm (vol. 13, pp. 39-72 in the 55-volume set, Luther's Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al), written in 1530, where he advocated the following:

If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed -- for example, if anyone were to teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold -- such teachers should not be tolerated, but punished as blasphemers . . .

By this procedure no one is compelled to believe, for he can still believe what he will; but he is forbidden to teach and to blaspheme.

(LW, Vol. 13, 61-62)

Is this merely my interpretation? Hardly. The famous Luther biographer Roland Bainton wrote:

In 1530 Luther advanced the view that two offences should be penalized even with death, namely sedition and blasphemy. The emphasis was thus shifted from incorrect belief to its public manifestation by word and deed. This was, however, no great gain for liberty, because Luther construed mere abstention from public office and military service as sedition and a rejection of an article of the Apostles' Creed as blasphemy.

In a memorandum of 1531, composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, a rejection of the ministerial office was described as insufferable blasphemy, and the disintegration of the Church as sedition against the ecclesiastical order. In a memorandum of 1536, again composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, the distinction between the peaceful and the revolutionary Anabaptists was obliterated . . .

Melanchthon this time argued that even the passive action of the Anabaptists in rejecting government, oaths, private property, and marriages outside the faith was itself disruptive of the civil order and therefore seditious. The Anabaptist protest against the punishment of blasphemy was itself blasphemy. The discontinuance of infant baptism would produce a heathen society and separation from the Church, and the formation of sects was an offense against God.

Luther may not have been too happy about signing these memoranda. At any rate he appended postscripts to each. To the first he said,

I assent. Although it seems cruel to punish them with the sword, it is crueler that they condemn the ministry of the Word and have no well-grounded doctrine and suppress the true and in this way seek to subvert the civil order.

. . . In 1540 he is reported in his Table Talk to have returned to the position of Philip of Hesse that only seditious Anabaptists should be executed; the others should be merely banished. But Luther passed by many an opportunity to speak a word for those who with joy gave themselves as sheep for the slaughter.

. . . For the understanding of Luther's position one must bear in mind that Anabaptism was not in every instance socially innocuous. The year in which Luther signed the memorandum counseling death even for the peaceful Anabaptists was the year in which a group of them ceases to be peaceful . . . By forcible measures they took over the city of Munster in Westphalia . . .

Yet when all these attenuating considerations are adduced, one cannot forget that Melanchthon's memorandum justified the eradication of the peaceful, not because they were incipient and clandestine revolutionaries, but on the ground that even a peaceful renunciation of the state itself constituted sedition.

(Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, New York: Mentor, 1950, 295-296)

Moreover, Luther wrote in a 1536 pamphlet:

That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.

(Martin Luther: pamphlet of 1536; in Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891]; Vol. X, 222-223)

Oh, sorry, I forgot that Luther was just a man, and should be ignored; a momentary slip . . .

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 24 February 2004.

My Alleged Excessive Reliance on Catholic Luther Biographer, Hartmann Grisar, S.J. (vs. Dr. Edwin Tait)

The words in blue are from Edwin Tait: an Anglican with a doctorate in history.

Follow-up discussion of my paper, "The Ambiguous Relationship of Luther and the Early Protestants to St. Augustine."

I have not verified Dave's quotation yet. He got it from Hartmann Grisar's book on Luther, which is hardly an unbiased source.

Are you saying that Grisar, author of a six-volume biography of Luther, cannot be trusted when he cites a primary source, and/or that he mis-quoted the Protestant Luther scholar Kostlin, etc.? I readily admit that Grisar had a Catholic bias and a bias against Luther which is excessive, but do you deny that Protestant Luther scholars have a Protestant bias? It gets a bit ridiculous that -- in condemning the natural bias of an historian of a particular faith -- you become so paranoid about said bias that you don't even trust the historian to give you an accurate citation. If you wish to make that claim, then by all means go look at the letter yourself and then report back to us.

[I]n this case the source in question turns out not to be a primary source but a secondary one, and not the source that most scholars (including Catholics) would consider the most reliable at that (Grisar is certainly one interpreter of Luther who should be taken seriously, but to consult only Grisar is to beg for an entirely one-sided perspective).

This is another unnecessary slap at Grisar. Are you saying that historians cannot cite primary sources without being accused of inherent bias and dishonesty, simply because they are Catholics and don't think Luther was a saint? If you claim he is misrepresenting the letter, then prove it. In the meantime, I have given you plenty to chew on.

And of course we observe a certain double standard, as so often. The Jesuit biographer of Luther is so profoundly biased that he can't even be trusted in his citation of primary sources (despite the fact that he very often cites Protestant scholars like Kostlin in agreement).

Yet when some historian is arguing against some point of Catholic theology, his bias is irrelevant. Thus, a certain so-and-so has been extolling liberal "Catholic" historian Brian Tierney to the skies. It is unimportant, apparently, that he has a severe bias against the doctrine of papal infallibility, which would clearly affect his work on the history of that doctrine, just as Grisar's Catholic affiliation might affect his objective estimation of Luther in this or that respect. But that's fine. Our friend doesn't seem to care that Tierney has made some extremely "unscholarly" and "undetached" statements about papal infallibility such as:

In the years since 1870, therefore, theologians have devoted much ingenuity to devising a sort of pseudo-infallibility for the pope, a kind of Pickwickian infallibility.

In effect, they are content to pretend that the past did not happen. There is at least a beguiling innocence in this approach. Other theologians, more reprehensibly (from a historian's point of view), have devised hermeneutical principles so ingenious that the documents of the past can never embarrass them. By applying such principles, they can reinterpret any doctrinal pronouncement, regardless of its actual content, to mean whatever the modern theologian thinks that its framers ought to have meant.

The infallible doctrine of the past remains infallible but it is deprived of all objective content. This procedure seems based on a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland logic. One is reminded of the Cheshire Cat—the body of a past pronouncement disappears but its grin of infallibility persists.

(From the Introduction of his book, Origins of Papal Infallibility: 1150-1350: Leiden: 1972)

Don't you think, Edwin, that this guy's severe, mocking bias might affect his judgment of this Catholic dogma at least as much as Grisar's bias might affect his research? Just checking . . .

Regarding Grisar, I think you have misunderstood. I don't object to Grisar being read and used as an authority. I object to your using him as your primary authority on Luther, apparently without consulting either the original sources on many points or (since you don't know German and may not know Latin, though most of Luther's works are translated into English) modern secondary sources that differ with Grisar.

I use whatever is in my library and available on the Internet, mostly. This particular matter came up and the quote was from Grisar. I haven't seen it anywhere else. But he gave the primary sources, so we can check it out if one of has a library near us adequate enough to supply the primary source.

You might also want to check out my recent paper on the Peasants' Revolt:

Martin Luther's Violent, Inflammatory Rhetoric and its Relationship to the German Peasants' Revolt (1524-1525)

I submit that in that paper I was extremely charitable towards Luther, and take a much more "moderate" view on his involvement than people might expect from me (especially given all the distortions of what I believe that swirl about, since I am told that I am often cited on Internet discussion boards). If people will read my stuff sans the stereotypes of myself or Catholics in general, I think they will see that I am very ecumenical indeed and not "anti-Protestant" (let alone "anti-Luther") at all.

It isn't that a Catholic bias is inadmissable. It's that if you read Grisar you should read Martin Brecht to balance him.

Buy the book for me and send it and I'll be happy to read it.

If you are only going to rely on one major Luther biography it shouldn't be Grisar, because he doesn't represent the consensus of modern scholarship.

I rely on him less and less but -- let's face it -- a six-volume work about anyone is a valuable resource. Sometimes I go to the library of an evangelical college near me. In the Luther section there are no biographies anywhere near the length and depth of Grisar. There it is, sitting there, in six large volumes, and all the others are one volume.

If you choose to identify yourself with one extreme (though significant and formidable) strand of Luther scholarship, you can expect criticism for being biased. Especially if you have not read the more commonly accepted sources.

I don't see how I am identifying with anything. I simply use whatever resources I can find. I utilize as much primary source material as I can. Much too much is made of Grisar's "bias." I'm not relying on him in the sense that I ignore anything else. But I refuse to not use him because people think he is so profoundly biased. He is not. He has some obvious bias, but it is greatly exaggerated. He's a whipping-boy, in other words.

I will make a confession here: I have not read Grisar. My view of him is based on my advisor, David Steinmetz, whose judgment I trust (not implicitly but considerably). Steinmetz is a Methodist (a moderately conservative one), but he is frequently invited to speak by Catholics, and when my wife Jenn took his Luther seminar she was convinced he was a Catholic. He speaks respectfully of Grisar as a very learned man who stuck by an old-fashioned view of Luther that had become unfashionable even among Catholics (I believe he was disciplined in some way by his order, or by the Vatican, for his unecumenical approach). It isn't that Grisar can be dismissed, but simply that he should not be the one source on which you rely.

I do not at all. Let's put that one to rest. You need to look over some of my more recent papers on Luther, and you will be quickly disabused of this notion. I'm as "ecumenical" on the scale as Joseph Lortz (who is so highly-praised), if not much more so.

Brecht (whose work I know much better) is extremely biased as well (in fact I only have to read a few pages of him and he drives me crazy with his hyper-Lutheranism). I admit that generally if I'm going to read a highly biased author I prefer to read one with a bias in favor of the person they are writing about. But this would apply as well to Aquinas or Ignatius Loyola or any Catholic. People do not generally see clearly what they hate, though there are certainly exceptions. So while Grisar is very much worth reading (and I hope to do so some day), I question your excessive reliance on him to the exclusion of more sympathetic readings.

This is getting old: I don't know where you get this impression. Even in the posts above in this thread, my citations from Protestants (e.g., McGrath and Kostlin) were exponentially more extensive than anything from Grisar.

You can surely see why I would suspect you of deliberately picking the one major Luther scholar (and Grisar certainly is a major Luther scholar) who will tell you what you want to hear.

I can't see it, actually. You have an unbalanced view of my work with regard to Luther.

Generally one should read against one's biases, not with them, when dealing with history.

I love to read all viewpoints.

I was curious as to how much it can be shown that I cite and rely on Hartmann Grisar in my papers on Martin Luther. Here are all of them listed:

Catholic Response to the Movie Luther (2003): "Good to Hear Both Sides of the Story" 175K

3 citations out of many dozens.

Martin Luther's Violent, Inflammatory Rhetoric and its Relationship to the German Peasants' Revolt (1524-1525) 157K

1 section out of 18: each devoted to one historian: a good half of them Protestants. Grisar writes (quite fairly, it seems to me): "No one . . . will be so foolish to believe that it was really his intention to kill the Catholic clergy and monks."

Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary 12K

1 citation.

Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception)

1 section out of 11, but only because a controversy about Grisar himself arose. The paper utilized copious citations of Protestants.

Dialogue: Martin Luther the "Super-Pope," de facto Infallibility, and Protestant Tradition: A Philosophical and Analogical "Turning the Tables" Argument in Reply to Certain Protestant Rhetoric Against the Papacy (Dave Armstrong vs. Edwin Tait) 23K

Not mentioned.

Martin Luther the "Super-Pope" and de facto Infallibility: With Extensive Documentation From Luther's Own Words 68K

11 citations, but all of Luther's own words, and far exceeded by many words from Luther's Works in English and several other sources.

Did Martin Luther Regard the (Roman) Catholic Church as a Non-Christian, Apostate Institution?: Featuring dozens of citations from Luther's own writings; particularly On the Councils and the Churches (1539) and Against Hans Wurst (1541) 74K

Not mentioned, but copious citations from Luther's primary works.

"Martin Luther's Foul Language: How Sinful Was It? (and can it be justified on the grounds of culture and time-period?)" (Dave Armstrong vs. Edwin Tait) 52K
[this paper has since been deleted from my website]

Mentioned only once and not cited: "Hartmann Grisar's 6-volume biography is very thorough, but of course that is now dated and quite Catholic in bias. It's still full of fascinating information and documentation, though."

Did Martin Luther Believe That Jesus Had Carnal Relations With Mary Magdalene and Others? (Dave Armstrong vs. "BJ Bear" & "Bonnie" + EL Hamilton) 70K

Not mentioned.

"Dialogues on Martin Luther and His Relation to Subsequent Protestantism"
(Dave Armstrong vs. Edwin Tait) 49K
[this paper has since been deleted from my website]

Not cited. Discussed only because Edwin kept bringing him up as a biased historian.

"Martin Luther, Indulgences, and the Origins of the Protestant Revolt" 15K

[since removed from my collection]

1 citation.

The Orthodox vs. the Heterodox Luther 15K

Not mentioned.

2 Corinthians 5:21: Was Jesus Christ Literally Made Sin on the Cross? Did He Suffer the Horrors of Damnation? Luther and Calvin vs. the Church Fathers 29K

Cited extensively.

"Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary" 14K

Not mentioned.

"Man-Centered" Sacramentalism: The Remarkable Incoherence of Dr. James White:
How Can Martin Luther and St. Augustine Be Christians According to His Definition? 42K

1 citation of Luther's own words.

Baptismal Regeneration: Luther, Wesley, and Anglicanism 6K

Not mentioned.

"Luther vs. the Canon of the Bible" 9K

[since deleted]

1 citation.

"The Influence of William of Ockham and Nominalism on Martin Luther
and Early Protestant Thought" 205K

1 citation.

So out of 19 total papers, the tally is as follows:

Extensive citation: 1 paper.
11 citations (but all his own words): 1
3 citations: 1.
1 section out of many: 3 (but two of these were because my opponent brought him up, and the third was in a paper surveying Church historians' opinions).
1 citation: 5.
No citations or mentions: 8.

Furthermore, several of the citations were Luther's own words only; not Grisar's opinions of them. This small number is from a total size of file space of 1368K or 1.37 MB: easily the length of two significant books. This is hardly consistent with the following charges:

I object to your using him as your primary authority on Luther, apparently without consulting either the original sources on many points or . . . modern secondary sources that differ with Grisar.

If you choose to identify yourself with one extreme (though significant and formidable) strand of Luther scholarship, you can expect criticism for being biased.

It isn't that Grisar can be dismissed, but simply that he should not be the one source on which you rely.

I question your excessive reliance on him to the exclusion of more sympathetic readings.

You can surely see why I would suspect you of deliberately picking the one major Luther scholar . . . who will tell you what you want to hear.

Okay; point taken. My subjective impression was that Grisar seemed to come up a lot. But I admit that probably discussions I've had with you have blurred into discussions I've had with other Catholics online. I did get a bit of a bee in my bonnet because it seemed as if every time I got in a discussion with a conservative Catholic about Luther some rather tendentious claim would be made and backed up with Grisar.

You had a subjective impression of my use of Hartmann Grisar. When I brought the discussion down to objective facts: how much I actually cited the man and used his arguments in my 19 papers about Luther, we saw that your impression was mistaken, and you quickly conceded the point (for which I thank you, by the way). This is why I urge people to be very specific in their criticisms, so some objective discussion can be had, and any necessary changes made as a result of it.

Also, I'd like to compliment you on your essay on Luther and the Peasant Wars.
It's a lot more nuanced than what I remember seeing on your site previously on
this subject (though again, this may be more about how people used your site
than what you actually said).

Thank you. I would hope that I have grown in my twelve years of writing on these issues as a Catholic. I freely admit that my materials from the early 90s, right after my conversion, were far more polemical than I would write them today. Much of my writing about Luther on my site a few years back was from that period. I have since revised those several times, and even removed some of them (such as a general paper about Luther). And I have sought to utilize more primary sources, in part because of legitimate criticisms that I needed to do so, and in part because I was more interested and motivated to do extra research.

And yes, it is true that some folks may generalize and claim things about my work and opinions that are not true, or unduly exaggerated. One lady, for example, said that I "hated" Martin Luther. You can see that this is not true, judging from your opinion of this one paper. I think she could have seen it too, but a lot of people just see what they want to see. I guess I am often a "controversial" figure. But all my heroes were too (Socrates, Jesus, Paul, Newman, Wesley, Bonhoeffer, even Lewis -- who was much-despised among his academic colleagues at Oxford because of his apologetics and popular writings, and denied a professorship), so I am not ashamed to be in the company of the "controversial" simply because I take a stand for one view over others and believe in truth and dialogue as a means of obtaining that.

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 28 January 2004.

The Wickedness of Christian Division, Anti-Catholicism, & Anti-Protestantism

I wrote the following (8-11-03), disgusted, upon deciding to leave an anti-Catholic discussion board. It expresses my very strong feelings concerning the tragedy of Christian division and how it harms the Body of Christ and the larger culture and society we live in:
------------------------------------------------

A two-year-old child of a friend of my wife's was struck by a car and killed today. This is real life, which consists of unutterably tragic things like a child being killed, and comforting a very distraught wife and dealing with a world in which such things can happen, and working through the problem of evil (which I have long considered the most serious objection to Christianity, though certainly not a disproof).

I lost my only brother to leukemia five years ago. I watched him waste away and die (I have his picture on my home page, at the bottom). His own wife died suddenly ten years before that. Then he lost his job and was diagnosed with leukemia within a year. That's real life. The piddly, petty, juvenile crap that goes on in many (not all, by any means) posts on this bulletin board and every other one I have found where Catholics and Protestants try to interact like adults, is not real life. It is scandalous, disgusting, an ego trip, an exercise in futility. Much of such "dialogue" (again, not all, but quite a bit) is a waste of time and an insult to any conscientious Christian's intelligence (on any side, including my Orthodox brothers and sisters).

Real life is this country and world going to hell in a handbasket, with legal abortion for 30 years, and partial-birth infanticide, and now legal sodomy, and soon-to-be legal homosexual "marriage" and a homosexual practicing bishop in the Episcopal Church; broken families, pornography everywhere, sewer bilge piped into network TV, rotten schools, massive social and crime problems in the large cities (I'm right outside Detroit and grew up in a working-class neighborhood there), etc., etc.

Meanwhile, fellow Christians (who actually agree on the great bulk of these social and moral problems) slug it out daily, so that Satan can win the victory. Divide and conquer. Let the nation go to hell. Let souls go to hell who are out there waiting to hear the Good News. Instead the lost in a lost world get to see Christians treating each other like morons.

Let them all go to hell. Never try to work together with a Catholic brother (like myself) who has web pages on many things about which most of us here would agree: abortion, sexual and gender issues, atheism, the Trinity, the cults, racial issues, Judaism, defenses of the Resurrection of Jesus, etc. That would never do. No, instead we must have the accusations and insinuations and rank insults. You don't know me. You can't read my heart. You don't know what motivates me.

And you wonder why I don't want to stay here? Get a life! Go to a soup kitchen or to a crisis pregnancy center. Get out in real life and try to alleviate some of the suffering and emptiness and hopelessness out there, rather than sit here and lie about your fellow Christian brethren. Go be with your family; work out problems and grudges and disagreements with family and friends in "real life." Tell them you love and appreciate them; anything but the nonsense that regularly goes down on this discussion board.

For my part, I am interested in other things, like making sure I show love every day to my wife and four children, lest I lose any of them suddenly in some horrible fashion. I'm motivated to share the gospel with the lost and to show forth love and charity to friends and strangers, to be a light in this dark world, by God's grace. I want to share with atheists the hope that is in me, and with cultists that there is a better way. I want to continue to fight for traditional morality (and I have written about all these issues).

That doesn't happen on this board. Here we fight and lie about each other. I refuse to do it. And it will never end as long as Protestants here deny that Catholics are Christians, because it is a condescension and a bigotry which refuses to be corrected. And whenever bigotry against Protestants or Orthodox occurs amongst Catholics, I condemn that with equal vigor. Don't do it! Don't fall into Satan's trap and ploy.

Love your Christian brothers and sisters. Treat them with respect. Share with them and show them that you are a Christian too. Believe the best of them. Talk about things you agree on once in a while. Make this a positive experience and witness. Don't fall into the silly rhetoric and baiting and divisive sniping and backbiting and polemics and quarreling (as I have too often done, to my shame).

This is what I would like to share with anyone who regards me as some type of figurehead or leader in the Catholic Internet community. This is what I'll leave you with. Keep the faith, but love those who disagree with you, and be as charitable and unassuming as you can. If you don't feel that way, don't post; take a day and pray or read the Bible and come back and try to do better next time.

To the Catholics in particular: please forgive me all my shortcomings, manifested on this board. I'm not your model. Don't look to me, but to our Glorious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the "author and finisher" of our faith.

God bless you all.

Did Martin Luther Believe That Jesus Had Carnal Relations With Mary Magdalene and Others?

Dave Armstrong vs. "BJ Bear" & "Bonnie" (+ EL Hamilton)

From a discussion on the public, Protestant-moderated CARM Catholic Discussion Board. Perhaps we could call this discussion "Luther's Magdalenology" (???). BJ Bear's words will be in green. I believe he is a Lutheran. Martin Luther's words will be in red. "Bonnie" is a moderator on the CARM board, and is married to a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pastor. Her words will be in blue. EL Hamilton's words will be in purple.

* * * * *

orthodox
Fri Aug-08-03 05:29 PM

#71769, "Is true that Martin Luther believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married?"

["Orthodox" cited a reference in which someone wrote in Time Magazine that Luther believed Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married]

Dave G. Armstrong
Sat Aug-09-03 11:27 AM
#72005, "Weird Luther quotes about Jesus (?????)"
In response to Reply #34

[ . . . ]

I found one citation from Luther along these lines . . . My best guess is that it is a sarcastic, put-on type of comment from Table-Talk or similar sort of writing and rhetoric. Thus context would be supremely important to get the sense of what he is trying to say. So I'm extremely skeptical of this being a literal belief of Luther's. On the other hand (assuming for the moment that it is an authentic citation), it is a very interesting (and of course, prima facie, alarming and blasphemous) comment and I would like to learn more about what he meant, and to see context. It is from the Weimar edition of Luther's Works in German (WA). Here it is:

Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.

(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)

If [anyone] could find out more about this from some German-speaking Luther scholar, I would be most appreciative, and we could all correctly understand this strange quote, and truth would be the winner rather than innuendo and gossip and rumor.

Dave G. Armstrong
Sat Aug-09-03 11:48 AM
#72018, "Looks like Table-Talk"
In response to Reply #36

[ . . . ]

I'm trying to find more info. on this and I came up with this tidbit:

Source: St. Catherine's Review (a Catholic periodical)
"The 'New' Martin Luther" (May-June 1996 issue):

In "Table Talks" Luther got drunk one night and told some of his fawning sycophants that Jesus must have been an adulterer because even He could not resist temptations of the flesh. He went on to claim that Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha of Bethany, and the Samaritan woman at the well.

Note that if Luther was drunk, the absurdity and blasphemy and heterodoxy of the comment would be readily explained.

Dave G. Armstrong
Sat Aug-09-03 12:32 PM
#72025, "Corroboration from WELS (Lutherans)"
In response to Reply #38

From a WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) Q & A page: