Baptist Pastor Ken Temple Proves That St. Paul Was a Blasphemer Who Claimed That People Can Save Others (Mariology & Synergistic Soteriology)

Rembrandt, The Apostle Paul, c. 1657

This comes from a combox concerning Mariology. Ken's words will be in blue. The title and some of my humorous remarks are, of course, tongue-in-cheek and "turning-the-tables" or reductio ad absurdum rhetoric.

* * * * *

Ken wrote, citing Catholics (dunno who, though, because he provided no primary documentation):

The Flowery language of praise in prayer is wrong and she is made too much of and exalted beyond what the Scriptures say. Praying to Mary is much more than just "asking her to pray for us":

Prayer: O Mary, no one receives any favor except through you. Help me to ask you each day for the graces I need to remain faithful in my state of life."

O Mary, your holy name is great and brings us salvation. Let me strive to speak it with true love, boundless joy, and complete confidence."

O Mary, you are our Mother and our Teacher, instructing us in how to live. Help me to heed your inspirations and follow your Divine Son more closely.

pp. 98-99 Mary Day by Day, 1987 Catholic Book Publishing, Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn . . . Imprimatur: Patrick J. Sheridan, D.D. Vicar General, Archdiocese of NY.

"Mary brings salvation!" What more evidence do we need of exalting her above the Lord and only Savior, Jesus Christ? All of these facts and this blasphemous statement and prayer alone should keep any thinking Evangelical from being duped into converting to Rome by the tricks of always raising doubt and skepticism as to how do we know for sure who are in the right church, historical church, Newman's "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" arguments.

Very well, then, Ken. Great! You have succeeded in proving that the Bible and St. Paul both are blasphemous and exalt the Apostle Paul above Our Lord Jesus, since we have these passages in Scripture:

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

[Paul "saves" other people, thus clearly placing himself above God, and blaspheming, right, Ken?]

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

[Good grief! What blasphemy! After his own outrageous claims, St. Paul now thinks that Timothy can save himself (the Pelagian heresy) and those who hear him. Doesn't he know that only God can save??!!!]

Philippians 2:12b-13 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

[Paul again blasphemously teaches Pelagianism, or works-salvation. Folks are taking the place of God by working out their own salvation???!!!! If someone says that God is mentioned in the second part, the Calvinist "monergist" still has to explain how a human being can participate at all in what only God can do (according to the monergist) ]

2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12,17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

Ephesians 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you...

Ephesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.

[Paul distributes divine grace, just as we believe Mary does, and teaches that others can do the same]

St. Peter also joins in this folly of teaching that Christians can distribute divine grace to each other:

1 Peter 4:8b-10 . . . love covers a multitude of sins. Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another. As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace.

So much for papal infallibility, huh???

Even the angels help to give grace:

Revelation 1:4-5a John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ . . .

[it was nice of John to add in Jesus Christ at the end, along with his own and the angels' giving of grace, just so we'll remember that there is but one mediator of God's grace. Not a lot of "monergism" there, I reckon . . .]

In fact, Paul is so gung-ho on the notion of his distributing grace to folks, that he mentions this at the beginning of practically every epistle that he wrote. I wrote in another paper of mine:

Grace, however, is also referred to in Scripture as in some sense "quantifiable". Lutherans and Protestants in general try to deny this; they usually view grace as simply "God's favor"; that which saves one, in a non-quantifiable sense (as in, e.g., Rom 6:14; Eph 2:8-10). The biblical usage is more complex and nuanced than that, . . . [many examples given]

In fact, it can be plausibly argued, that when Paul and others use the common greeting of "grace to you" (e.g., Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; Phlm 1:3; Rev 1:4) it is in the same quantifiable sense: i.e., "may God give you more grace." It doesn't make sense if it is intended only in the broad Protestant meaning (that we agree with as far as it goes) of "you are saved by grace alone".

Why wish, after all, that someone should have or receive what they already clearly possess? If "grace" only means "the free favor by which we are saved" then the Christians to whom Paul is writing his epistles already have this grace (since Protestants believe in a past salvation that is already accomplished). So why would Paul say "grace to you"? It would be like telling a man who has a daughter "I wish you the blessing of a daughter from God" or a man with a nice mansion: "best wishes to you for a nice mansion." That makes no sense. Rather, it seems fairly clear, I think, that st. Paul is stating that he hopes and prays that his readers will receive more grace from God, as in the sense of 2 Peter 3:18, Ephesians 4:7, James 4:6, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:2, etc.

Good work, Ken! It's not every day that a Baptist pastor proves by his own words that the Apostle Paul is a blasphemer (along with -- as a special bonus -- John, Peter, and Timothy) . . .

Related Reading:

Does St. Alphonsus de Liguori, in The Glories of Mary, Teach That Mary is "Above God" and Can "Manipulate God"? (Corrections of Protestant Misunderstandings of Catholic Mariology) (Dave Armstrong vs. Len Lisenbee)

"Whitewashing History": Critique of James White's Book, Mary -- Another Redeemer? (William Possidento and Dave Armstrong vs. James White)

Dialogue on My Critique of James White's Book, Mary -- Another Redeemer? (+ Part II) (particularly with regard to the differing views on early Mariology of Protestant Church historians J.N.D. Kelly and Philip Schaff) (Dave Armstrong vs. John Q. Doe and "BJ Bear")

A Biblical and Theological Primer on Mary Mediatrix

Human, Pauline, and Marian Distribution of Divine Graces: Not an "Unbiblical" Notion After All?

Does Mary's Role as Mediatrix Contradict Jesus Christ as the Sole Mediator? / Response to a Catholic Critic

Dialogue on the Biblical Analogies to the Concept of Mary Mediatrix (Dave Armstrong vs. Robert Bowman)

Mary as Mediatrix: The Patristic, Medieval, and Early Orthodox Evidence

Treatise on the Queenship of Mary, "Queen Mother", and the Assumption (Steve Ray)

The Imitation of Mary

Is Mary Worshiped by Catholics? (The Latria / Dulia Distinction)

Did Jesus Renounce Marian Veneration? (Lk 11:27-28)

"Work Out Your Own Salvation With Fear and Trembling" (Philippians 2:12): Does It Harmonize With Protestant Soteriology? (vs. Ken Temple)

St. Paul compares the process of eschatological salvation to the running of a race

Baptist pastor Ken Temple is a regular on my blog. His words will be in blue. I used this passage in a paper demonstrating synergism and human cooperation with the distribution of salvation and grace.

* * * * *

Philippians 2:12b-13 (RSV) . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

My original (non-satirical) comment about the passage in the other paper was: "If someone says that God is mentioned in the second part, the Calvinist 'monergist' still has to explain how a human being can participate at all in what only God can do (according go the monergist)."

Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote, concerning this passage:

In truth, the two doctrines of the sovereign and overruling power of Divine grace, and man's power of resistance, need not at all interfere with each other. They lie in different provinces, and are (as it were) incommensurables. Thus St. Paul evidently accounted them; else he could not have introduced the text in question with the exhortation, Work out or accomplish your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God which worketh or acts in you. So far was he from thinking man's distinct working inconsistent with God's continual aiding, that he assigns the knowledge of the latter as an encouragement to the former . . . It is quite certain that a modern Predestinarian never could have written such a sentence [as Philippians 2:12-13].

(Sermon: "Human Responsibility," 1835 [his Anglican period] )

This verse says, "work out your salvation", not "work for your salvation".

Of course. I never claimed otherwise. When I implied this it was a use of sarcasm, according to the purpose of reductio ad absurdum in the previous paper (that is, not something I actually believe; I was making fun -- with my notorious dry wit -- of what many Protestants mistakenly think Catholics believe).

Work it out, what God has put in you; make it manifest by obedience, because God is in you.

No problem with that. I only object to the insinuation that this process has nothing to do with salvation. It clearly does, because Paul uses the word "salvation." What could be more clear than that? One can read in theological presuppositions if they wish, but that is eisegesis, and not the way to properly interpret Holy Scripture.

Monergism is only passive at the beginning point of regeneration. After that you make real choices because the heart has been set free. Monergism is not talking about sanctification. It is not passive once the heart and soul are regenerated. You still believe and choose and have to strive for holiness, etc. You make real choices. You believe; only because God first awakens the heart, makes the heart alive, (Ephesians 2:1-4), opens the heart (Acts 16:14) shines the light (2 Cor. 4:5).

I understand all that. My recent post detailing Luther's true teaching about the necessity of good works proves this. Again, your mistake lies in relegating this passage to sanctification, when that is not what the text says. Your position holds that sanctification has nothing formally, directly to do with salvation. But the text uses the word "salvation"; therefore, your position that it is about sanctification rather than salvation is utterly incoherent.

We are co-laborers with Christ. I Cor. 3:9 Monergism does not preclude our choices and will and actions and deeds and efforts in sanctification in manifesting the reality of salvation that God works in the heart, both to will and to work His pleasure. Again, monergism is only about the fact that God alone regenerates at the beginning because the soul is dead; like a dead battery. "you were dead in your trespasses and sins." Ephesians 2:1

No need to reiterate this. I understand it. But it is helpful to readers who are unacquainted with the Calvinist position.

Once God makes your heart alive, you must choose to obey and He give you the power and motivation to do that.

Indeed.

See Ezekiel 36:26 also, When God takes the stoney heart out and replaces it with a new soft pliable heart; then He causes them to walk in His statutes.

That's right.

The only problem, Ken, is that the verse does not separate sanctification and justification, as Protestants arbitrarily do. It is saying, rather, that we have the salvation and we also have to "work it out."

If we didn't have the salvation in some sense (we would call it regeneration or initial justification), then we wouldn't be able to "work it out." On the other hand, If we have it and we are working it out, then it is impossible to separate this "working" from salvation itself and put it into a little neat airtight compartment called "sanctification." And it is impossible to act as if the salvation was already obtained in one instant of justification, and thus assured forevermore. The Bible has a word for sanctification that could easily have been used here if indeed that is what Paul actually meant. He uses the other word himself, elsewhere.

If you're working out salvation, then obviously, the "working out" has to do directly with the salvation. According to your theology, the verse ought to say:

Work out your sanctification, in which you are grateful to God for your salvation and justification.

(RFB: Revised Fundamentalist Version)

But of course it does not. So in order to avoid the implications you have to play with the text and eisegete, and force it into an unbiblical Protestant soteriology. And this is only one of many many such passages.

Moreover, if this is merely the usual Protestant scenario of "doing good works in obedience and gratefulness for the justification already obtained by God's free gift of grace and imputed justification" then for what reason is the person "in fear and trembling"? What is he afraid of, or worried about, or vigilant to obtain? If you're simply doing good deeds to show God how much you love and thank Him for the irrevocable past gift of salvation, that you are absolutely sure you have already, why would you be scared and trembling?

It makes no sense; no more than would the analogy of a child who pleases his mother or father by washing the car or doing the dishes doing so in fear and trembling. Not at all. There is nothing to fear! The child is in fear and trembling when he or she fears being punished or displeasing parents, not when doing something nice for them, in love.

I think it is rather obvious, then, that Paul is teaching a vigilance in staying in a state of grace with God, lest we fall out of it (precisely as Catholics -- and to a large extent, Protestant Arminians -- hold). That is more than enough cause for "fear and trembling." Hence, Paul writes, along the same lines:

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:7-12 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to dance." We must not indulge in immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put the Lord to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents; nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Galatians 5:1,4-7 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. . . . You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Philippians 3:8-17 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained. Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us.

Colossians 1:21-23 And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, . . .

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Dead Wrong For All the Wright Reasons (the Old Testament Prophetic Tradition, AIDS, and Abortion)

This paper presupposes that readers have been following (to some extent, anyway) the goings-on of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his pastor and "spiritual mentor" Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of the ultra-liberal United Church of Christ denomination. I was struck by several ironies and inconsistencies in his rhetoric, especially after he has now taken to giving public speeches, defending himself and his ludicrous positions. I felt compelled to express myself, because of the hypocrisy of this man.

Oddly enough, I myself have been exceedingly critical of America, from a generally conservative political perspective (largely due the scandal of legal abortion), but also one that is a Catholic "third way". It is not only political liberals who take such positions, and being intensely critical does not necessarily equate with a lack of patriotism or love for one's own country, any more than we would claim that the prophet Jeremiah did not love his nation because he (like all the prophets) scathingly criticized it. He spoke truth to his people, and condemned rampant sins and institutional sins. The Christian message (especially when applied to socio-political situations) contains an inherent prophetic element.

I've often argued in the past that the existing tragedy of the abortion holocaust should have been many many times more scandalous and troubling to Americans on an ongoing basis than 9-11 was, since it, too, involves the slaughter of "innocent" people, and -- even worse -- receives legal sanction in America, and the ethical sanction of many Christian denominations. And the numbers are exponentially greater: 50 million or so murders compared to some 3,000, or roughly 16,667 times more murders than on 9-11.

America is (so I have also contended more than once) arguably the most wicked nation in history, in light of abortion (not to mention other great sins in our past such as the near-genocide of the Indians and slavery), and in light of the biblical principle of "to whom much is given, much is required." I defended this at length in a paper, entitled: Is America the Wickedest Nation Ever? Yes (a Strong Biblical Case Can Be Made).

Rev. Wright has opined that 9-11 was a judgment on America. But he does so for the wrong reasons (or the Wright ones, as it were: to follow the wordplay in the title). Wright seems to think (as we see in the latest video being shown on the cable news stations) that America's foreign policy is literally the equivalent of that of the Islamic terrorists. This is not my position at all. I have defended the War in Iraq, twice (one / two). Like most people, I think we should get out as soon as we can (and made that clear at the time of my defense years ago), but I'm not at all sure as to how soon that might be.

Wright thinks that our military habitually and deliberately attacks innocent civilians as a matter of course. Though we did a lot of that in World War II, and I have condemned it in no uncertain terms, as has -- somewhat indirectly -- the Catholic Church, I submit that the truth of the matter is quite the contrary. We are fighting against those who do do such things. There is no "immoral equivalence" at all. But for some reason, Wright thinks this is the case.

He claimed that 9-11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost." For what, though, is the question? He would say it is all these imagined things that we are doing around the world, being a force more for evil than for good. It is typical left-wing, historically revisionist, selectively indignant anti-Americanism. He has to distort facts and argue like a radical Marxist handing out fliers on a college campus, to maintain his thesis.

Rev. Wright thinks that it is entirely possible that the American government deliberately spread the AIDS virus as a way to commit genocide against black people (because of the documented Tuskegee experiments that exploited black men with VD).

Rev. Wright calls our country the "US of KKKA", as if there has been no progress at all in race relations these past 50+ years, since Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus (I recently sat in the very bus in a local museum), and Rev. Martin Luther King became a civil rights activist.

The most amazing thing is that he believes that America (well, he qualifies this to primarily the government) is still out to "get" African-Americans, despite the fact that one of his own church members (a black man) is almost certainly going to be the Democratic candidate for President. You try to figure that out. I can't. My powers of reasoning and analysis completely fail me on this one. But of course, Wright's feelings here are not based on reason, but rather, emotion over the many legitimate past grievances of African-Americans.

But back to the point I was advancing towards: Rev. Wright makes up imaginary present sins and proceeds to conclude that 9-11 was a judgment for those. He has talked about America "killing babies" in various wars. But to my knowledge, he hasn't uttered one peep about the gigantic legally-sanctioned wickedness of child-killing that we call legal abortion.

He is now covering himself in the mantle of the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament: one that is steeped in social justice and decrying of societal outrages and discrimination, and he makes out that the criticism of him is really an attack on this tradition of speaking truth to power, that is historically characteristic of the black churches. But he fails to see how much of that same prophetic tradition would condemn abortion as well.

This is, again, typical left-wing (or in this case, quite "mainstream liberal") ethical double standards and inconsistencies, with regard to its own ostensible rhetoric of being for the little guy: and the oppressed and helpless, etc., etc. ad nauseum. But not a peep about the ongoing slaughter of preborn children . . . The Old Testament that Rev, Wright likes to cite for his cause of anti-Americanism is filled with passages against abortion, child-killing in general, and the shedding of innocent blood:

You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 18:21)

"Say to the people of Israel, Any man of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, who gives any of his children to Molech shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones. I myself will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, defiling my sanctuary and profaning my holy name. (Leviticus 20:2-3)

For he who avenges blood is mindful of them; he does not forget the cry of the afflicted. (Psalm 9:12)

they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood. (Psalm 106:38)

There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, (Proverbs 6:16-18)

For behold the LORD comes out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; the earth will also disclose her blood, and will no more cover her slain. (Isaiah 26:21)

Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity, desolation and destruction are in their highways. (Isaiah 59:7)

Also on your skirts is found the lifeblood of guiltless poor; . . . (Jeremiah 2:34)

if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, . . . (Jeremiah 7:6)

Because the people have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by burning incense in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, (Jeremiah 19:4)

Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. (Jeremiah 22:3)

But you have eyes and heart only for your dishonest gain, for shedding innocent blood, and for practicing oppression and violence." (Jeremiah 22:17)

They built the high places of Ba'al in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (Jeremiah 32:35)

Then he said to me, "The guilt of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of blood, and the city full of injustice; . . . (Ezekiel 9:9)

And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your harlotries so small a matter that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?. . . Thus says the Lord GOD, Because your shame was laid bare and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotries with your lovers, and because of all your idols, and because of the blood of your children that you gave to them, (Ezekiel 16:20-21,36)

When you offer your gifts and sacrifice your sons by fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. And shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, says the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you. (Ezekiel 20:31)

You have become guilty by the blood which you have shed, and defiled by the idols which you have made; and you have brought your day near, the appointed time of your years has come. Therefore I have made you a reproach to the nations, and a mocking to all the countries. (Ezekiel 22:4)

For they have committed adultery, and blood is upon their hands; with their idols they have committed adultery; and they have even offered up to them for food the sons whom they had borne to me. (Ezekiel 23:37)

For when they had slaughtered their children in sacrifice to their idols, on the same day they came into my sanctuary to profane it. And lo, this is what they did in my house. (Ezekiel 23:39)

"Therefore, as I live," says the Lord God, "I will prepare you for blood, and blood shall pursue you; since you have not hated blood, therefore blood shall pursue you." (Ezekiel 35:6)

So I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood which they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it. (Ezekiel 36:18)

"Egypt shall become a desolation and Edom a desolate wilderness, for the violence done to the people of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land. (Joel 3:19)

For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and he has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her. (Revelation 19:2)

I have been myself every bit as "prophetic" in my own denunciations of American law and culture due to this terrible evil as Jeremiah Wright has in his own fashion. I've even taken it deeper than he has. I don't confine myself to governmental blame, but say that all of us in this society have blood on our hands, as long as we allow the outrageous butchery and murder of children to continue. I'm taking my share of that blame, alongside everyone else, as I condemn the sin. I don't just stand here and preach and rail against everyone else's sins, or that of the government, or all the gazillions of white racists that Wright thinks are still out there: as he does.

But (unlike Wright) I haven't ignored those parts of the Bible that don't fit my political agenda: those that are in perfect accord with traditional Christian ethics, whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. Most Protestant churches have, sadly, capitulated to the pro-death abortion culture. and Wright's United Church of Christ is at the forefront of such "progress." Here is its position on abortion:

The United Church of Christ (UCC) has strongly supported the legalization of abortion since 1971. The UCC supported FOCA and strongly opposed the PBA [Partial-Birth Abortion] ban to the point of joining the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARRAL) in a statement affirming President Clinton’s veto of the PBA Ban Act in 1996. The UCC has also called for the church to support abortion in any national health care bill.

As we would expect, based on observation of the descent of many Protestant denominations into heterodox theological liberalism, the UCC is in the forefront of compromise concerning homosexuality and so-called "gay marriage" as well. It voted (by an 80% majority) to approve same-sex "marriage" in July 2005: making it the largest denomination to do so as of yet. Gee, what a huge surprise! Who would have expected such a development??!!

Jeremiah Wright, despite all this, is delusional to such an extent that he actually thinks he is in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets and historic black churches, despite his denomination's belief in the moral propriety of sodomy and the slaughter of babies in the womb (or halfway out of it, on the way to be born, but for the butcher's knife of the abortionist). He uses the Christian religion the way a butcher uses a hog: to get what he wants out of it: no more and no less.

Alveda King, the niece of Rev. Martin Luther King, wrote:

I can remember the days when Jesse Jackson was pro-life, and he went across the country calling abortion genocide. I don't understand how he took that turn or why. I personally believe that any leader, especially African-American leaders -- and I can say this because I'm African-American -- should be compelled to remember the days of slavery and to remember their responsibility toward the children we call the unborn. They are real people too, and they actually have civil rights.

(Illinois Leader, January 15, 2004)

Jesse Jackson eloquently defended the right to life of the preborn in a January 1977 article for Right to Life News:

Human beings cannot give or create life by themselves, it is really a gift from God. Therefore, one does not have the right to take away (through abortion) that which he does not have the ability to give.

Some argue, suppose the woman does not. want to have the baby. They say the very fact that she does not want the baby means that the psychological damage to the child is reason enough to abort the baby'. I disagree. The solution to that problem is not to kill the innocent baby, but to deal with her values and her attitude toward life . . . Deal with the attitude that would allow her to take away that which she cannot give. . . .

Another area that concerns me greatly, namely because I know how it has been used with regard to race, is the psycholinguistics involved in this whole issue of abortion. If something can be dehumanized through the rhetoric used to describe it, then the major battle has been won. . . . Those advocates of taking. life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder; they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified. . . .

What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person, and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually?

It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.

Jackson spoke at the 1977 March for Life. But when he ran for President, he reversed his position. In that year he wrote:

If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.

But in 1988 he stated that "it is not right to impose private, religious and moral positions on public policy.''

Civil rights activist and comedian Dick Gregory has decried abortion as genocide:

Government family programs designed for poor Blacks which emphasize birth control and abortion with the intent of limiting the Black population is genocide. The deliberate killing of Black babies by abortion is genocide--perhaps the most overt of all.

(Ebony magazine, October, 1971)

For more information along these lines, see BlackGenocide.org and another article on black genocide.

All this murder and self-destruction is going on day in and day out in the African-American community, with the sanction and blessing of black pastors like Wright and Jesse Jackson (who often won't speak out against premarital sex, either), and yet Wright wants to talk about idiotic conspiratorial rumors of a deliberate AIDS genocide perpetrated by an evil whitey "KKK" government?! And he preaches things like the following?:

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.

(April 2003)

May God help us all, with a nutcase like this parading around as a minster of the gospel. The only encouraging thing about it is that lots of people seem to know he is a nut. But conspiracy theories like this one (that Barack Obama today called "ridiculous") are believed by African-Americans in astonishing numbers. According to a 1999 scientific study of 520 black adults, 27% held to AIDS-conspiracy views, and 23% were undecided. A 1990 study of black church members discovered 35% who accepted the conspiracy theory. A 2003 study of 500 subjects produced similar remarkable results, with 27% opining that "AIDS was produced in a government laboratory."

Exchange With Protestants on the Meaning of "Unanimous Consent of the Fathers": Does it Allow Any Exceptions?

Baptist pastor and blog regular Ken Temple's words will be in blue. "Interlocutor"'s words will be in green. This is from a previous combox discussion originally having to do with Mary's sinlessness.

* * * * *

Mary was without sin even while on the earth,

You are just assuming that. Romans 3:23 "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

I'm not assuming anything because I have backed up these views with Holy Scripture:

Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations

Dialogue on the Exegesis of Luke 1:28 ("Full of Grace"), and the Immaculate Conception (Dave Armstrong vs. Ken Temple)

Dialogue with an Evangelical Protestant on Catholic Mariology (including an explicitly biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, from Luke 1:28, related exegesis, and the meaning of grace) (Dave Armstrong vs. Jack DisPennett)

"All Have Sinned . . . " (Mary?)

* * *

Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil, Hillary – 6 of the Early Church fathers who taught that Mary had sinned.

So what?

Well, there goes "unanimous consent" of the fathers. Rome defines a dogma based on Tradition. We examine history and see there's actually conflicting views amongst the fathers. Is 1 father good enough as a witness for a dogma/Tradition, 10, 50? . . . It basically seems to come down to, Rome says it, so we'll believe it, even if the evidence to support it seems lacking which is problematic to most Protestants. "Unanimous consent", the "constant teaching of the church", etc. etc. basically boil down to "trust our authority, you're not reading history or scripture correctly". Is there then anyway to test traditions/teachings as Christ instructed? Not really - the faith in Rome is a priori.

The early church fathers who believed that Mary sinned, . . . completely destroys this idea of "the unanimous consent of the fathers", a completely non historical claim. What does it mean?

Well, there goes "unanimous consent" of the fathers.

Not at all, because you fail to understand that that term (used in this particular ecclesiological / patristic context) does not mean "absolutely every" -- as it is used today, but rather, "consensus of the vast majority" in line with the magisterium of the Church. See a short paper by Steve Ray that explains this.

On the unanimous consent of the fathers issue: Steve Ray and your argumentation just don't fly with logic, reason, normal use of language; nor history. It is a modern attempt to escape the implications of this; for if your church is wrong on one thing; the whole thing falls. And it is wrong on many things, especially the Marian dogmas and the "unanimous consent of the fathers" statements -- these things fell your Infallibility dogma and the whole RCC system like a giant oak tree falling down.

To the contrary, Your Dictionary.com gives the following as synonyms:

unanimity Synonyms

n.

accord, unity, unison, concord, consensus, harmony, concordance, sympathy, congruence, conformity, correspondence, apposition, compatibility; see also agreement 2.

Antonyms disagreement*, discord*, dissonance.

Note that "consensus" is included: precisely as I have stated. Not every term must mean "absolutely every." Roget's Thesaurus gives similar synonyms:

unanimity (520.5; under general category, "Assent")

like-mindedness, meeting of minds, concurrence, consent, accord, general agreement, consensus, consensus of opinion, general acclamation. [partial list]

(New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 3rd edition, 1962, p. 339)

Steve Ray wrote another article on this topic in Envoy Magazine. The Latin phrase is unanimem consensum Patrum . Note St. Vincent of Lerins' famous passage:

In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense ‘Catholic,’ which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

(Commonitory, 2)

See how he qualifies it at the end? This passage is often used polemically against Catholics. So if it is to be so used, then let our detractors at least understand its meaning properly. The same book is also the most explicit exposition of the notion of development of doctrine in the Church fathers.

Answers.com gives the same meaning:

Thesaurus: unanimity

noun

The quality or condition of being in complete agreement or harmony: consensus, unanimousness. See agree/disagree.

If one follows the link to "consent" one finds:

Dictionary:
consensus

n.

1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: “Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced” (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.

2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

[Latin cōnsēnsus, from past participle of cōnsentīre, to agree. See consent.]

Thesaurus.com offers the same:

Main Entry:	unanimity
Part of Speech:	noun
Definition:	The quality or condition of being in complete agreement or harmony.
Synonyms:	consensus, unanimousness
Source:	Roget's II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition by the Editors of the American Heritage® Dictionary. Copyright © 2003, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Now, if we follow the same source (Dictionary.com) for the definition of "consensus", we get the following:

1.	majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2.	general agreement or concord; harmony.

---

[Origin: 1850–55; <>consent(īre) to be in agreement, harmony (con- con- + sentīre to feel; cf. sense) + -tus suffix of v. action]

—Usage note Many say that the phrase consensus of opinion is redundant and hence should be avoided: The committee's statement represented a consensus of opinion. The expression is redundant, however, only if consensus is taken in the sense “majority of opinion” rather than in its equally valid and earlier sense “general agreement or concord.” Criticism of consensus of opinion has been so persistent and widespread that the phrase, even though in common use, occurs only infrequently in edited formal writing. The phrase general consensus is objected to for similar reasons. Consensus is now widely used attributively, esp. in the phrase consensus politics.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Perhaps someone wants to quibble with the meaning of the word synonym? That won't work, either, according to Dictionary.com:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

synonym
–noun

1.	a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as joyful, elated, glad.

2.	a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity; metonym.

3.	Biology. one of two or more scientific names applied to a single taxon.

---

[Origin: 1400–50; <>synōnymum <>synnymon, n. use of neut. of synnymos synonymous; r. ME sinonyme < class="luna-Img" src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" alt="" border="0">]

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

synonym

1432 (but rare before 18c.), from L. synonymum, from Gk. synonymon "word having the same sense as another," noun use of neut. of synonymos "having the same name as, synonymous," from syn- "together, same" + onyma, Aeolic dialectal form of onoma "name" (see name). Synonymous is attested from 1610.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This

synonym

noun

two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context [ant: antonym]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

What was it you claimed again?: "Steve Ray and your argumentation just don't fly with logic, reason, normal use of language; nor history".

Nice try. I rest my case. Your negative characterization of this point falls flat. The meaning as used by Catholics is completely possible by the rules of etymology and definition, as I have just demonstrated. You want to quibble? Then go after dictionary and thesaurus; it's no longer my problem, but your war with established, documented usage.

* * *

I'm aware of that view which is why I didn't bring forth Irenaeus and some of his views on Jesus' age and millenialism. That's why I mentioned the numbers - what percentage comprise a "vast majority"? We have 6 listed so far denying it, however many affirming her sinlessness (though they may admit they are speculating or that it's a matter of pious opinion), and however many silent on the issue. Do you think the Assumption has the "unanimous consent" of the fathers then, given you would not be able to bring forth a "vast majority" of fathers writing on it (and Epiphanus admits he is mainly speculating) and in light of the Joussard quote *? Or, if you think that is sidetracking the issue from the IC, where are the critical responses from others to the writings of the fathers who did not hold to the IC if this was the general belief of the "vast majority"? (This is simply a reversal of the "argument from silence" that Ray promotes for the papacy).

* Now I have not read this work (so maybe context helps), but came across this citation which seems to gel with many non-RC concerns over Tradition (here with the Assumption, but could deal with the IC reasoning as well as many other RC teachings): Joussard cited in Carol's Mariology:

A word of caution is not impertinent here. The investigation of patristic documents might well lead the historian to the conclusion: In the first seven or eight centuries no trustworthy historical tradition on Mary’s corporeal Assumption is extant, especially in the West. The conclusion is legitimate; if the historian stops there, few theological nerves will be touched. The historian’s mistake would come in adding: therefore no proof from tradition can be adduced. The historical method is not the theological method, nor is historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition.

Ken has produced six who denied the sinlessness of Mary. I have 61 fathers listed in my book on the fathers. I have documented for many of these, that they accepted Mary's sinlessness.

The Assumption was a very slowly developing doctrine and difficult to find at all in many fathers, but that gives me no pause over against Protestantism, since the two pillars of Protestantism, sola Scriptura and sola fide, are scarcely found at all among the fathers (I devoted over 100 pages to the utter lack of the first concept in my book), and the canon of Scripture is a completely "unbiblical" doctrine, where the Protestant has to inconsistently rely on the infallibility of Catholic Church tradition.

If you think 5-10% dissent in the fathers regarding particular issues is a problem for us, why is not 95-100% dissent in the fathers and complete absence in Scripture as well (canon, Bible alone) not a problem for you? Goose and gander.

See related papers:

Dialogue on Whether the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary are Legitimately Part of Apostolic Tradition (Dave Armstrong vs. James White)

"Live Chat" Dialogue on Patristic Consensus (Particularly, Mariology) (Dave Armstrong vs. James White)

J.I. Packer Quits Anglican Church of Canada

Packer, 81, is one of the most renowned evangelical theologians. He is joining a more orthodox traditional Anglican group. See the story.

"Why Do Catholics 'Pray to Mary'?"

A woman on the CHNI Discussion Forum (Lutheran, I believe, and inquiring about Catholicism) stated that, for her, "praying / talking to Mary" was easier, because of her background, with abuse issues. That led me to make the following remarks:

* * * * *

I don't see anything "unCatholic" at all in what you write. God meets people where they are at. God knows that it is difficult for some people to relate to God as a "father" figure, based on painful personal experience (in fact, I wrote a paper once about how it has been documented that many atheists had lousy relationships with their fathers, and so rejected God as a result).

I doubt that this is how asking Mary to pray for us began, however. It comes from the notion of the communion of saints. All the saints in heaven are more alive and aware than we are, and they have been perfected. They care deeply about us, pray for us, and can present our petitions to God.

Mary, as the Immaculate Mother of God is the most exalted creature who ever lived. She is in a unique position to ask her Son to give us aid, comfort, or grace. There is even an analogy to the Queen Mother position in ancient Israel (my friend Steve Ray has written some great material about that).

Also, we have the Scripture: "the prayer of a righteous man avails much" (James 5:16). Mary was without sin even while on the earth, so it is perfectly biblical and natural (and smart!) to ask for her intercession, because it has more power than our own does. It makes eminent spiritual sense.

Protestants often recognize the power of a more righteous person praying. That's why they will ask pastors or famous and respected figures like Billy Graham to pray for them. They understand this principle.

The only difference is that we say that saints in heaven also pray for us and can therefore, be asked to pray. They are outside of time, with God in heaven, and so they have "time" to hear our petitions. Even Martin Luther recognized the first thing:

Although angels in heaven pray for us (as Christ himself also does), and although saints on earth, and perhaps also in heaven, do likewise, it does not follow that we should invoke angels and saints.

(Smalcald Articles, 1537, Part II, Article II; The Book of Concord, translated and edited by by Theodore G. Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, 297)

Luther (as we see) rejected asking these saints to pray for us. This is illogical, since we know that saints are aware of earthly events, based on Hebrews 12:1, frequent indications in the book of Revelation, and other biblical passages.

If they are aware of what is going on, and can interact with our thoughts, just as angels can, and have love, then it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that we can ask for their intercession.

Think, for example, of the Transfiguration. Moses and Elijah appeared and talked to Jesus. Theoretically, they could have been asked by the disciples to pray for them or for some cause. That would have been an example of our asking "dead" people to pray. Nothing in the Bible would prevent them from saying "yes."

Many Protestants do not grasp the communion of saints, and for some reason feel compelled to collapse every such instance into the "occult" or necromancy or having a seance: "contacting" the dead. The two things are completely different (see my explanation as to why that is).

I should clarify, too, that when we ask Mary to "help" us, we mean by her power of intercession. She can't grant us things in and of herself, but only by virtue of the graces given to her by God. She is God's instrument or agent, just as any creature is, but in her exalted position as the Mother of God, she is the best possible creature we can ask to pray for us. Many have greatly misunderstood the flowery language of Marian devotion: as if Mary herself were the source of the blessings and graces received. Not true. God is that, and this is Catholic teaching.

My favorite citation along these lines comes from Lutheran sociologist Peter Berger:

Protestantism may be described in terms of an immense shrinkage in the scope of the sacred in reality . . . The sacramental apparatus is reduced to a minimum and, even there, divested of its more numinous qualities. The miracle of the mass disappears altogether . . . Protestantism ceased praying for the dead . . . [and] divested itself as much as possible from the three most ancient and most powerful concomitants of the sacred - mystery, miracle, and magic . . . The Protestant believer no longer lives in a world ongoingly penetrated by sacred beings and forces. Reality is polarized between a radically transcendent divinity and a radically 'fallen' humanity that, 'ipso facto,' is devoid of sacred qualities . . .

The Catholic lives in a world in which the sacred is mediated to him through a variety of channels - the sacraments . . . intercession of the saints . . . a vast continuity of being between the seen and the unseen. Protestantism abolished most of these mediations. It broke the continuity, cut the umbilical cord between heaven and earth, . . .

(The Sacred Canopy, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967, pp. 111-113)

Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism

From R.E. Aguirre of the Ex Umbris Et Imaginibus In Veritatem blog. Thanks!

Dialogue With an African-American on Rev. Wright and Racism (Including In-Depth Biblical Examinations of Complete Sermons and Speeches on Judgment)

This came about as a result of my post: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Dead Wrong For All the Wright Reasons (the Old Testament Prophetic Tradition, AIDS, and Abortion). Amaryah is a 20-year-old African-American woman (see her blog, Not Like Crazy . . .). She responded in the combox for this post, and I counter-replied. She then made a second, fuller reply. This post is a response to her second comment. I wholeheartedly thank Amaryah for taking the time to interact with myself and my readers on this very important topic, and engaging in dialogue. I wish there were a hundred people with her opinions that would come here and talk, or that would be willing to dialogue with me on their own blogs. Few things would please me more, as I have been intensely interested in race relations issues for now more than 40 years. Her words will be in blue.

* * * * *

Here's a couple of links to some fuller sermons:

After 9/11 [ link to You Tube sermon: Part One ] [+ Part Two / Part Three / Part Four ]

I'm listening to this complete sermon. I'll comment as I see fit. At about the four-minute mark of Part One he is talking about Psalm 137, about Israel lamenting about its exile in Babylon. He made the remark that in all his years of preaching (since 1959, making it 42 years), he had never preached about the last three verses, and that these were rarely dealt with from the pulpit (although he did say a little bit later that he had taught on them in Bible study classes. For my part, I have heard (in evangelical congregations) several sermons or teachings on this subject matter (I can vividly remember one Bible study, because I made a comment), and have written about it myself.

For example, in my 1996 book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, in commenting on Revelation 6:9-10, I mentioned (pp. 112-113) the same concept:

Here the martyrs in Heaven are uttering what are known as "imprecatory prayers." These are not so much vengeful as they are a plea for, and recognition of, God's role as the wrathful Judge who will rescue and vindicate the righteous, either in this life or the next. Examples can be found particularly in the Psalms (Psalms 35, 59, 69, 79, 109, 139) and in Jeremiah (11:18 ff., 15:15 ff., 18:19 ff., 20:11 ff.).

(see also the same point made in an online article that I wrote for my own parish: under #2)

Here is an excellent article on imprecatory prayers, by Bob Deffinbaugh (Baptist, I believe), and another by Jeff Ziegler, and a third, from the excellent site (that I link to): Christian Think Tank. I'm simply noting that I am well familiar with the concept he is talking about, and I don't think it is quite as unknown in Christian circles as he implies. How he goes about interpreting the same biblical data may become problematic, too (since he is part of a denomination that is theologically ultra-liberal). I'll see what I think as I listen to the sermon.

At around 5:00, Rev. Wright compares the historic experience of black people in slavery and facing discrimination, with the strong feelings expressed by the Hebrews in captivity. I have no problem with that. It makes perfect sense to me. I would feel exactly the same. In the instances where I have experienced prejudice against myself (as a Catholic, or pro-lifer, or political conservative, or a male in dealing with extreme feminists, or as a white person, dealing with black racists: once, for example, I was not allowed to enter a room and listen to a free speech from folks who believed in some sort of "black liberation theology", at Wayne State University in Detroit), I felt outraged, too. I can't even imagine what slavery would be like. It is an unfathomable horror to contemplate.

At 6:00 he is talking about how 9-11 raised in some people feelings such as those expressed in Psalm 137. That makes sense to me too. Shortly after that he preaches on 2 Kings 25: the description of the fall of Jerusalem, to give the congregation a sense of what it felt like to be overrun by enemies. So far so good.

In Part Two he continues the narrative of the fall of Jerusalem, in rather striking analogy to 9-11. The man is (stylistically) a great preacher; no question about it. But the content, as we shall see, sometimes leaves a lot to be desired, and he leaves out crucial aspects that need to also be included, to present a fuller biblical worldview.

Around 4:00 he is talking about how the early part of Psalm 137 highlighted "reverence." Then at 5:00 he says that this theme turned to revenge in the latter part of the Psalm. This is true on a human level; however, imprecatory Psalms are more complex than that, because there is a multi-faceted aspect of divine judgment being executed as well.

For what the Psalmist expresses in Psalm 137 (even in the last part) reflects God's righteous judgment (and this is, after all, divinely-inspired Scripture; not mere words and emotions of men -- though it includes those things). This is quite clear in Scripture. Babylon is judged by God in passages such as Isaiah 13 (including "infants" who are "dashed in pieces" and "wives ravished" -- 13:16; cf. 13:18). The denunciation continues in Isaiah 14, including these words:

Isaiah 14:1-2 (RSV) The LORD will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel, and will set them in their own land, and aliens will join them and will cleave to the house of Jacob. And the peoples will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them in the LORD's land as male and female slaves; they will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them.

Thus the agents of judgment were themselves judged, because it doesn't follow that the agent was therefore righteous, just because they were used by God for His purposes. I've written about this at length in my paper on the Judgment of Nations (with tons of Scriptural support).

The theme of judgment of Babylon continues in Isaiah 43:14-17 and chapter 47. God is the one who is vengeful, and He can use human armies to exercise His vengeance (and to maintain civil order: Romans 13: the "power of the sword"). Note how Babylon, whom God used to judge Israel, was herself judged by God:

Isaiah 47:3,6,9,11 Your nakedness shall be uncovered, and your shame shall be seen. I will take vengeance, and I will spare no man.

I was angry with my people, I profaned my heritage; I gave them into your hand, you showed them no mercy; on the aged you made your yoke exceedingly heavy.

These two things shall come to you in a moment, in one day; the loss of children and widowhood
shall come upon you in full measure, in spite of your many sorceries and the great power of your enchantments.

But evil shall come upon you, for which you cannot atone; disaster shall fall upon you, which you will not be able to expiate; and ruin shall come on you suddenly, of which you know nothing.

Jeremiah 50 and 51 provide further prophetic denunciations of Babylon (and note how the main reason is how she treated Israel, including divine vengeance for having destroyed the temple):

Jeremiah 50:17-18,24,28 Israel is a hunted sheep driven away by lions. First the king of Assyria devoured him, and now at last Nebuchadrez'zar king of Babylon has gnawed his bones. Therefore, thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing punishment on the king of Babylon and his land, as I punished the king of Assyria.

I set a snare for you and you were taken, O Babylon, and you did not know it; you were found and caught, because you strove against the LORD.

"Hark! they flee and escape from the land of Babylon, to declare in Zion the vengeance of the LORD our God, vengeance for his temple.

Jeremiah 51:5-6,10-11,24,34-37,49-51,56 For Israel and Judah have not been forsaken by their God, the LORD of hosts; but the land of the Chalde'ans is full of guilt against the Holy One of Israel. "Flee from the midst of Babylon, let every man save his life! Be not cut off in her punishment, for this is the time of the LORD's vengeance, the requital he is rendering her.

The LORD has brought forth our vindication; come, let us declare in Zion the work of the LORD our God. "Sharpen the arrows! Take up the shields! The LORD has stirred up the spirit of the kings of the Medes, because his purpose concerning Babylon is to destroy it, for that is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance for his temple.

I will requite Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chalde'a before your very eyes for all the evil that they have done in Zion, says the LORD.

"Nebuchadrez'zar the king of Babylon has devoured me, he has crushed me; he has made me an empty vessel, he has swallowed me like a monster; he has filled his belly with my delicacies, he has rinsed me out. The violence done to me and to my kinsmen be upon Babylon," let the inhabitant of Zion say. "My blood be upon the inhabitants of Chalde'a," let Jerusalem say. Therefore thus says the LORD: "Behold, I will plead your cause and take vengeance for you. I will dry up her sea and make her fountain dry; and Babylon shall become a heap of ruins, the haunt of jackals, a horror and a hissing, without inhabitant.

Babylon must fall for the slain of Israel, as for Babylon have fallen the slain of all the earth. "You that have escaped from the sword, go, stand not still! Remember the LORD from afar, and let Jerusalem come into your mind: `We are put to shame, for we have heard reproach; dishonor has covered our face, for aliens have come into the holy places of the LORD's house.'

. . . for the LORD is a God of recompense, he will surely requite.

The Edomites (Ps 137:7) are also judged by God (Jer 49:7-22; Lam 4:21-22; Ezek 25:12-14, 35:15; Joel 3:19; Amos 9:12; Ob 10 ff.)

For further material about such judgments by God, including massacres, see my papers (including links to many other similar treatments): "How Can God [in the OT] Order the Killing and Massacre of Innocents?" [Amalekites, etc.] (+ Discussion).

Rev. Wright neglects to take into account all these things. He doesn't give his hearers the whole picture. He seems to reduce Scripture to a mere narrative of men; minimizing its divine inspiration, and the use of men with ordinary emotions, for the expression of divine purposes. Thus, the Psalmist in Psalm 137:7-9 expresses, by divine inspiration, God's own will for the later judgment of Babylon, as seen in several other passages, from God Himself, through the mouths of the prophets. It's not only human emotions over having been conquered and oppressed.

At 8:00 he appears to be moving towards a pacifist or semi-pacifist position, whereby it is wrong for the United States to militarily strike the terrorists who were behind 9-11. This is where he starts to go off: as if all military action flows simply from the unsavory and sinful feelings of revenge. This is not true. The Bible doesn't teach that (see my paper on pacifism, just war, and the Bible).

How ironic, that in sermons that have been sound-byted by the media, with context neglected (and I agree that that practice is generally grossly unfair, and we Catholics have often had our words taken out of context and distorted by those who passionately oppose our theology), Rev. Wright himself neglects all sorts of biblical context, and thus presents half-truths with regard to the motif of judgment in Scripture. He selectively offers what he wants to present, in order to further his political purposes.

This is altogether typical of theologically liberal preaching by political liberals. The politics overcomes the Bible and orthodox theology. The political ideology in effect becomes the new religion (to some degree, at least). It is ultimately a great abuse of the Bible. I've already noted the hypocrisy of Wright and many in the black churches, in never condemning abortion: the greatest evil by far of our time. This is yet more hypocrisy and neglect of the full message of Holy Scripture.

At 9:00 in Part Two, Wright is excoriating (at 9:16) the "hatred of unarmed innocents: the babies; blessed are they who dash your baby's brains against a rock, and that, my beloved, is a dangerous place to be" -- based on Ps 137:7-9. But as I've just shown, it is not necessarily the case that the Psalmist hates children! He is expressing (as an inspired writer of God-breathed Scriptural revelation) the completely justified divine wrath. Would Wright also condemn God for the sin of "revenge" when He expresses the same thing? If not, then why can't the Psalmist reflect that? The Bible is not mere human opinion.

Besides, how dare Wright condemn the murder of innocent children (in this case as ordained by God as part of particular judgment), while his own denomination upholds the legality of partial birth dismemberment, where a "doctor" pulls a child halfway from its mother's womb, inserts scissors into his or her brain, and crushes his or her skull, to deliver the child to our lovely, just world, immediately into the trash can or incinerator?

It's exactly what is described in Psalm 137, that he is preaching against! The only difference is that in the old days the baby was thrown against a rock. Now we have educated doctors (just as the Nazis who designed the Final Solution were highly educated and scientifically sophisticated) slaughter them by ripping them limb from limb, or burning them, or crushing their skulls (see the pictures of these perfectly legal "procedures").

What sort of man would condemn one thing out of one side of his (very loud) mouth and ignore the same outrageous injustice right beneath his nose? He condemns the ancient Israelites who felt an urge for revenge, while he ignores his own society; his own denomination, probably within a few blocks of the place he preached this very sermon NOW: with the murder of the innocent unborn child occurring every day, day and night, year in and year out, legally upheld (just as slavery once was), to the tune of over 50 million now murdered. And he thinks he is the one who is preaching all of this wonderful biblical justice and righteousness, with this sort of manifest Pharisaical blindness and hypocrisy on his own part?

At 1:30 of Part Three, Rev. Wright notes how America is guilty of the sins of taking the Indians' land, and of slavery ("terrorism"). Quite true, and I agree. He cites some white ambassador who was on Fox News and claims that he made the statement, citing Malcolm X: "America's chickens are coming home to roost." Fox News, however (i.e., Sean Hannity) has pointed out the last two nights that this person never made the statement that Wright attributed to him. He misquoted him. Isn't that interesting?

Then he goes on to condemn various bombings (Grenada, Panama, Iraq), as if they were all equally immoral and designed to kill innocents. I highly doubt that this was the case. I do, however, condemn with him, the nuclear bombings in Japan in 1945. Now, with some of these points (if we set aside the blurred distinctions for a moment) are valid. We have done acts of evil and have called them good, many times. We tried to justify the slaughter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it can't be done. I don't object (in the main) to Wright making these observations, nor to the notion of American possibly being judged or being subject to the biblical principle of "what you sow, so shall you reap."

What I object to primarily is his astonishing blindness concerning abortion. He is neck-deep in justification of that. He winks at it while condemning these other outrages. He's a moral hypocrite. I can sit here as a despised "white conservative" and agree with much of his analysis of America's historic sins, but Rev. Wright won't agree with me that abortion is a grave evil and ought not be legal in any civilized nation. I am on record stating that America is the most wicked nation of all time, by biblical standards.

I can put Wright to shame in excoriating America's sins. I hold that all of us are complying with the abortion holocaust, by letting it continue, when we could stop it in a month, legally-speaking. We're all neck-deep in baby's body parts and blood. I've even agreed (shortly after 9-11, on my website) that America played a significant role in stirring up Muslim resentment, and thus having some contributing indirect cause in the tragic events of 9-11.

At 4:28 of Part Three, Wright asks: "what should our response be right now?" [to 9-11]. He said that he "asked the Lord" that question four days in a row. At 5:50 he starts talking about three things he says God told him. At 6:05 he gives #1: "this is a time for self-examination." Amen! Let's get America to start thinking about abortion. That's how I reacted to 9-11. When I heard of 3,000 deaths in the twin towers, I immediately thought of the 4,000 or so innocent preborn children who were also murdered on that same day, with legal sanction, and every day since January 1973. And I thought about how we don't care about that as a country, simply because those victims are so small, and unseen.

At 6:20 Wright said that this was a time for him to examine his relationship with God. Good. At 7:00 he noted how prayer and church services were filled right after 9-11. Normal human behavior there . . . God often has to wake us up. This is good stuff. Catholics are big on self-examination. We have a thing called "examination of conscience" that we do before another thing that we call confession. There's plenty of self-examination in our tradition. So I find this particular motif quite "Catholic." He went on to reflect on family relationships. I have no objection to any of this. It is good teaching. He said that we need to love each other in our church relationships. Amen.

Part Four continues this theme. I would add "how about loving the unborn child too?" How about liberals, who claim to be for the oppressed, the "little guy" start extending this care and compassion to the smallest among the family of human beings? At 3:20 he starts talking about "social transformation." Now we're back to the political. He describes America as "an arrogant, racist military superpower" (4:05). He urges that America shouldn't try to declare war on terrorists, but rather, declare war on racism (4:20). "Maybe we need to declare war on injustice" (4:25). Amen! How about starting with the defenseless unborn child? And we gotta declare war on "greed".

Rev. Wright lives in a $10,000,000 house, and drives a Mercedes-Benz. As usual, the liberal exempts himself from the advice and moralizing of his own sermons. At 4:53 he says: "maybe we need to declare war on AIDS". Like we haven't done so? This is so asinine that it doesn't deserve any rebuttal. We've virtually cured the thing already after many millions of dollars poured into the effort.

Then he hits on the truth again: lambasting the government for neglecting the health needs of the poor and public education. Liberals fight at every turn any educational reform. They despise home-schoolers like my wife and myself, precisely because we have rejected this same overwhelmingly liberal-run public school system as grossly inadequate and amoral. But when Wright says the same thing we have been saying for years, he is lauded and applauded. He ends the sermon on the usual spiritual themes of thanksgiving to and praise of God.

The other sermon I have been given a link to is the one where Wright says "God damn America . . ." (well, 6:48 of it, anyway). America should be judged. I wholeheartedly agree, and have said so for many years. God would be perfectly justified, in my opinion, to reduce the entire country to a pile of ashes tomorrow. But judged for what? That's the question. If politically conservative Christians say it should be judged for abortion or homosexuality, we are written off as nuts and fanatics. But if a (usually liberal) black preacher says we should go down for militarism and imperialism and racism, that is a profound pearl of truth that no one could doubt (because it's fashionable left-wing polemics).

I have agreed with large chunks of Wright's analysis, but again, he won't agree that sodomy and slaughter of innocent children are also fit for judgment? His denomination supports same-sex "marriage" and abortion, including partial-birth infanticide. WHY? Why can't he see this? Why are sexual sins exempted from the list of things that God might judge a country for? But let's see what he says in this sermon:

He decries slavery. I don't know a single reputable person today who defends slavery or denies that it was a huge national sin (only nuts and neo-Nazi types and however many KKK are still around, do that) . So there is no argument there whatsoever. At 0:50 he mentions the Dred Scott decision of 1857, that denied the personhood of black people. We pro-lifers have been using that example for years, as a parallel to Roe v. Wade, that denies the personhood of preborn babies. But that is off the radar screen for Wright. He apparently thinks that preborn African-Americans are not people and have no rights. He's the one who is, therefore, upholding the racism and the Dred Scott mentality today.

Every mother owns her preborn child and can do with him or her what she wills, including the most cruel forms of torture and murder. That's slavery. No one owns another human being. I want those children to live! But Wright dehumanizes them and allows them to be slaughtered and won't say one word of condemnation against that unspeakably evil outrage. He is more concerned about an unjust and outrageous 1857 Supreme Court Decision than a far worse 1973 decision and the slaughter of black children (and all other colors of children) today, every day. He'd rather lecture us about 1857 and the abominable history of race relations in this country.

Thankfully, he allows the possibility that "governments change" (1:20). Great. Yet he thinks that today's government would plant AIDS to target black people for genocide? Huh? He praises Bill Clinton at 2:10, but then "government changed" again and evil George W. Bush came in. "The election was stollen. We went from an intelligent friend to a dumb Dixiecrat: a rich Republican, who has never held a job in his life" (2:20).

He then preaches about how God doesn't change. He's against slavery now as he was before. "Governments fail" (4:30). They sure do, don't they? Ours can't even provide the most fundamental right to the preborn child: the right to life. And professed Christians like Rev. Wright can't even see the injustice of that. Folks like Clinton, Gephardt, Gore, and Jesse Jackson can understand this and then reject it simply because they are running for political office and because the Democrats won't tolerate rights for the unborn. Lord help us.

At 4:40 he goes after the British Empire and its practice of colonization. A very fair and justified critique . . . He attacks the treatment of the Indians at 5:15. I couldn't agree more. He decries the internment camps for the Japanese-Americans in WWII. Virtually no one would disagree with the wrongness of that, either. He returns to the theme of slavery. We all agree it was wrong (except for fanatics and extremist nuts)!

At 6:10 he claims that "the government gives then [black people] the drugs . . ." Now, government is responsible for every drug dealer in the ghettoes? It's all the government's fault? yet another conspiracy? Where is the fault of the actual criminals, for heaven's sake? Then at 6:20 he gets to the famous line, and it continues: ". . . for killing innocent people" and treating certain citizens as "less than human." (all except babies, of course, as usual). How can one be so blind?

So once again, it is the moral hypocrisy of not including abortion in all his social denunciations which is the primary problem.

And now I return to Amaryah's comments. She provided a link to an article: Toxic Sludge Being Marketed as Fertilizer Utilizing Low-Income Americans as Guinea Pigs, noting that "things like this are still happening." I agree that things like this still take place, and that it is an outrage. It's still a far cry, however, from the claim that the government planted AIDS as genocide against black people. I'm not arguing that government (whoever is running it) is saintly. I'm contending that some claims about it are ludicrous and unfounded.

Its not completely outside of the realm of possibility to believe the government capable of such a thing. While I don't agree with the Rev. Wright's assertion, I don't think he should be labeled a kook, . . .

Okay, so we agree that the claim is quite disputable; our disagreement is how relatively kooky or nutty it is to make such a claim. I can handle that. At least you disagree with the assertion. I would even agree that, because of things like what the above article describes, and the Tuskegee experiments that went all the way to 1972 (!!), that there is some small degree of plausibility. But I do not agree at all that it is likely, let alone factual, that (white, government) folks actually plotted to have AIDS destroy an entire race of people.

The targets of genocide today are children in the womb, not African-Americans. But black people are, strangely enough, in league with the pro-death mentality. They vote 90% for the folks who uphold that genocide. They have disproportionate numbers of abortions. Because of the overwhelming politically liberal position of black people, they buy (on the whole) this feminist / pro-abortion mentality hook, line, and sinker. This is what I find so amazing. Black folks, of all people, should be attuned to injustice being perpetrated against others with no cause.

especially when more white people in America believe Elvis is alive than believe that racism is still a serious problem [link].

Now this is very interesting, and I agree with you. The poll would depend on how "very serious" problems of racism are defined. I don't deny for a second that racism is still around. My main point there is that laws have vastly changed. Attitudes have changed to a large extent, too, but people's hearts still have the same old problems. There are all sorts of subtle racist feelings. How about, for example, letting your daughter marry a black man (no problem whatsoever for me)?

Things are a lot better than they were, but we still have a long way to go. That is my opinion on the matter. Some of the things in the survey are a bit subjective. 40% of blacks think they are treated equally in their communities, too. So are 4 out of 10 black people nuts (and like us blind white people who are dense about the black experience) because they don't see what the other 6 out of 10 view as an obvious truism? People have different experiences and perceptions. We know these are not just black conservatives because there aren't that many, by a long shot. I don find it an informative and interesting article, and I would agree with it for the most part. If I am asked whether I think white people underestimate the problems that black people continue to experience in a dominant white society, I readily agree that this is the case.

I believe Rev. Wright said things are better now in his PBS interview.

Good.

Also, the excelling of one African America does not prove that things are "far better now."

That's not the point. It isn't just one person making good money, but a person being the likely Democratic candidate for President. That is a huge change (along with, for that matter, a woman being the other possible candidate), because (I think it can safely be said) that would not have been possible even just a generation ago. This is real progress, and it can't be dismissed so easily.

Madame CJ Walker was the first female millionare in America and this happened in the early 1900's. If we followed your logic, her success should prove that racial problems we're "far better" than slavery . . .

Not at all, because that's not my logic. There are always exceptions to the rule, in any event. But if she was a serious presidential candidate, that would be my logic. But that didn't happen (for either a woman or a black person) till the year 2008, did it?

. . . and possibly a little bit, but always when talking about race it has been easier for whites to look back and see the magnitude of the problem later than when they're currently entrenched in it.

I think that's true. And black people are able to be blind to the abortion holocaust that is all around them, and not see the parallels to both slavery and Nazi Germany. I find that equally as amazing and inexplicable, I assure you. There is more than enough blindness and moral hypocrisy to go around.

However, blacks and other people of color who continue to fight against racism are labelled as kooks and troublemakers, stirring up divisions.

They are considered kooks when they say goofy, false things. Al Sharpton, for example, is not liked much by white folks, not because he is black, but because he is a demagogue, and deliberately tries to stir up racial tensions. You're not even old enough to remember the Tawana Brawley incident, that turned out to be a hoax. I remember it very well. This kind of nutty stuff is what white people despise as trumped-up exploitation (often for personal gain and/or fame) of existing race problems.

This is why we don't care for folks like Sharpton: the facts of the matter: not merely because he may advocate racial justice. I do that myself, and have my entire life. And that is what we object to in remarks like Wright's, that the government invented AIDS to kill African-Americans. It's kooky and wacko. It doesn't help advance race relations one iota to spew ridiculous falsehoods like that.

In fact, I would argue that it literally exacerbates racial tensions (a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy), because then white people of a sort inclined to be racist, will reason, "man, if a seemingly intelligent black preacher like this can believe such a silly thing, then black people must be pretty stupid and gullible." The prejudiced mindset will jump from the particular instance, to the generalization about the whole group. And so in this fashion, polemics like Wright's increase and promote the very racism and prejudice that he wants to oppose and lessen.

Furthermore, if you think black people are having children out of wedlock because they've bought into "sexual freedom," I think that's highly simplistic and seems to ignore how the creation of ghettos, and by consequence their extreme poverty which feeds a lot into out of wedlock births (because the same thing happens in extremely poor white areas as well), came to be a major part of the problem.

This is a naive analysis (I'll trade criticisms with you, since you said my belief was simplistic) that doesn't take into account many relevant factors and variables. I majored in sociology in college (the very field that studies things like formations of ghettoes and racism). I grew up in inner-city Detroit and went to all Detroit public schools (my high school was 80% black) and even to college in Detroit (Wayne State, which had about a 20-25% black population when I was there in the late 70s: far more than the University of Michigan or Michigan State University had). I know a little bit about these things.

First of all, you have to understand that the black family survived slavery intact. Black families have historically been very strong. That is not the case today, with African-American communities in virtual collapse, family-wise. Something changed. I say it is the Sexual Revolution and LBJ's Great Society. That has destroyed the black family structure, as it was historically. I won't pull out actual figures now, but I have seen them, and would be more than happy to produce them again if you wish to challenge what I assert.

About 40 years ago or so, illegitimacy rates in the black community were higher than in the white community, but not significantly higher. Today they are at 75% or so, which is a socially alarming statistic. Something caused that. You can't say it was slavery, because it wasn't there a hundred years ago, or even 30 or 40 years ago. So what caused this? You can't say it was merely racism, if you acknowledge that things are better at all than they used to be. The causes have to lie elsewhere. You can't say it is simply poverty.

It's true that if you control for the factor of poverty, poor whites and blacks have very similar situations, in illegitimacy and other social ills. But there is more going on than that. The African-American community (in far greater numbers than for whites) is plagued by fatherless families. You know it; I know it. No one can deny this. We can only argue as to cause. If you want to maintain that racism alone caused this, and only in the last 30-40 years, feel free, but I think it falls flat. That is truly naive and simplistic . . .

This stuff has to do with welfare and how it decimated black communities by enshrining lack of work and irresponsibility, and what that did to marital relations, with the husband not being needed, since Uncle Sam was providing income (and poor black men often being unemployed). Yet Rev. Wright blasted Bill Clinton's welfare reform as a bad thing. He obviously doesn't understand these variables, either. It was, in my opinion, backed up by statistics and sociological analyses, that welfare mentality along with the sexual and feminist revolutions that are the cause of the present astonishing decline of intact black families. The historic and continuing racism ties into that, too, of course, but not as primary cause in this instance.

Not every bad thing in the African-American community is because of racism. Some people (like Bill Cosby) get this and are trying to get the message through, but it is a slow process, because liberals are not big on personal sexual responsibility. They fight against it at every turn (and we see it in their lives: such as Jesse Jackson fathering children out of wedlock, or Coleman Young, former mayor of Detroit: and they are applauded for doing so).

Also, Barack Obama's calling Rev. Wright "ludicrous," is coming from a black man trying to run for president. His having to distance himself from comments that discomfort the majority of white America doesn't prove that he's "ludicrous," simply that white America and black America are on two different wavelengths and Barack has to cater to the majority.

I agree with the political realities of such a situation; however, I don't think we have to assume that Barack Obama is lying through his teeth. I think he truly believes what he is saying. Are you saying he is a liar, and doesn't really believe his current statements? He already claimed in his Philadelphia speech that he disagreed strongly with Rev. Wright's statements.

Secondly, you claim that this is simply a matter of different perceptions of whites and blacks. That is quite simplistic as well. It isn't just white people who think Wright is a kook and extremist. Plenty of black folk do too. You cited polls. I will do so as well. I like polls. They can provide a great deal of objective information.

According to a Rasmussen Report (national phone survey), reported on March 17th, 73% of voters said that Wright's comments were "racially divisive). Now, of course, in such matters, we always have to break the data down into black and white. And so, doing that, we find that 77% of whites felt that way, but also 58% of blacks, which is a significant majority, that would be considered a landslide in an election. So now, what do you do? Say that 58% of black people don't know that racism continues to exist in America?

The one-cause-for-all mentality doesn't work in this case. There has to be something in play besides unwillingness to face, or ignorance about racism. Black people think he is extreme, too. You're in the minority on this one, even among your fellow African-Americans. And that was before the current fracas. I suspect that his "negatives" will rise much higher now, because blacks will choose Obama over Wright (if they are forced to choose who to believe) in a heartbeat.

18% of African-Americans said they would be less likely to vote for Obama because of his association with Wright. That's less statistically significant, but still indicative of a strong "negative" for Wright. One out of five of a huge constituency group is highly relevant in politics, though. 16% also said Obama should leave Wright's church. So it ain't like only rich white suburbanites (I'm a fairly poor white suburbanite) or red-necked hicks think these things.

A Pew Research poll from March 27th reports that 29% of blacks were offended by Wright's sermons, while 43% of Democrats were, and even 33% of Obama's supporters (59% of Clinton's).

In my previous paper on Wright, I cited (at the end) three surveys as to black opinions on the AIDS conspiracy theory. They showed that only 27% (twice) or 35% believed this. That means, of course, that 73% and 65% did not, which are huge majorities. So it can hardly be deemed white blindness on racism alone when a white guy like me merely agrees with what 65% or 83% of black people also think, where goofy notions like the AIDS conspiracy are concerned.

I've also read the complete transcription of Rev. Wright's remarks at the National Press Club (4-28-08). I'll comment on a good amount of that now (with his words in green):

. . . . this most recent attack on the black church is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church.

He wraps himself in the Great Tradition, in order to escape the responsibility for his imbecilic remarks and (now, increasingly) behavior. This won't fly, because, as I have shown, a majority of black people do not agree with his goofy remarks. He can certainly claim to be a preacher in the tradition, but not in line with the best of the historic, venerable tradition.

Maybe now, as an honest dialogue about race in this country begins, a dialogue called for by Senator Obama and a dialogue to begin in the United Church of Christ among 5,700 congregations in just a few weeks, maybe now, as that dialogue begins, the religious tradition that has kept hope alive for people struggling to survive in countless hopeless situation, maybe that religious tradition will be understood, celebrated, and even embraced by a nation that seems not to have noticed why 11 o’clock on Sunday morning has been called the most segregated hour in America.

I'm doing my best to participate in such a dialogue. I hope more African-Americans will engage in it with me on this blog, or invite me to theirs, and I'll be more than happy to come talk, if cordiality and lack of personal insults are the order of the day. I love the black churches (the last time I attended one was to see Aretha Franklin sing in a Detroit church. We had a glorious time there). It is because of the love I have for them that I am so saddened to see the historic message they have brought soiled and corrupted by the mess of pottage that is the political far-left (that ultimately derived from a lot of Dead White Guys).

As for being segregated at church, I have worshipped with far more African-Americans as a Catholic than I ever did as a Protestant. Our dearest friend at our parish (where we've been for 17 years) was a black man who died in the last year. We visited his home, his wife in the hospital, and went to his funeral. Most of the evangelical congregations I used to attend were lily-white. Just an observation . . .

Maybe this dialogue on race, an honest dialogue that does not engage in denial or superficial platitudes, maybe this dialogue on race can move the people of faith in this country from various stages of alienation and marginalization to the exciting possibility of reconciliation.

Amen! But I'll guarantee that political liberalism is not the answer to racism or problems in the black community. The principles of biblical Christianity are the answer and solution. I'd say the same about political conservatism, by the way, to the extent that it departs from biblical and historic Christianity (as it, too, sometimes does, though a lot less than with liberalism).

. . . [I am] a pastor and a professor who comes from a long tradition of what I call the prophetic theology of the black church.

Except where that prophetic, biblical theology deals with the slaughter of babies . . . somehow that can be overlooked, just as racism has often been overlooked by the dominant white culture.

Now, in the 1960s, the term “liberation theology” began to gain currency with the writings and the teachings of preachers, pastors, priests, and professors from Latin America. Their theology was done from the underside.

Their viewpoint was not from the top down or from a set of teachings which undergirded imperialism. Their viewpoints, rather, were from the bottom up, the thoughts and understandings of God, the faith, religion and the Bible from those whose lives were ground, under, mangled and destroyed by the ruling classes or the oppressors.

It's warmed-over Marxism, which has never helped anyone in the long run . . . Historic "black theology" was not Marxist. Black people were rather conservative. They were Republicans from the time of Lincoln till FDR, then they started to increasingly adopt more liberal social and political views. But of course the southern Democrats in the 60s were largely racist segregationalists. It was the northern Republicans who allowed the Civil Right Act to be passed in 1964. Not what we usually hear, is it? But it's documented fact.

In the late 1960s, when Dr. James Cone’s powerful books burst onto the scene, the term “black liberation theology” began to be used. I do not in any way disagree with Dr. Cone, nor do I in any way diminish the inimitable and incomparable contributions that he has made and that he continues to make to the field of theology.

Yeah; we noticed . . .

The prophetic tradition of the black church has its roots in Isaiah, the 61st chapter, where God says the prophet is to preach the gospel to the poor and to set at liberty those who are held captive. Liberating the captives also liberates who are holding them captive.

It frees the captives and it frees the captors. It frees the oppressed and it frees the oppressors.

Except now the new oppressed slaves are children in their mother's wombs (including 14 million slaughtered African-American children).

God’s desire is for positive, meaningful and permanent change. God does not want one people seeing themselves as superior to other people. God does not want the powerless masses, the poor, the widows, the marginalized, and those underserved by the powerful few to stay locked into sick systems which treat some in the society as being more equal than others in that same society.

God’s desire is for positive change, transformation, real change, not cosmetic change, transformation, radical change or a change that makes a permanent difference, transformation. God’s desire is for transformation, changed lives, changed minds, changed laws, changed social orders, and changed hearts in a changed world.

AMEN! How this applies in particulars is, of course, where the controversy arrives. When Wright tries to make out that Holy Scripture teaches a half-baked Marxist, pro-death, unisexist, feminist worldview, then those of us who are students of the Bible and who have devoted our lives to promulgating its message (as I have, just as Wright has) must protest.

These two foci of liberation and transformation have been at the very core of the United Church of Christ since its predecessor denomination, the Congregational Church of New England, came to the moral defense and paid for the legal defense of the Mende people aboard the slave ship Amistad, since the days when the United Church of Christ fought against slavery, played an active role in the underground railroad, and set up over 500 schools for the Africans who were freed from slavery in 1865.

Good for them. Now the same denomination thinks that slaughter of a full-term baby (and those at any stage of development) should be legal, and that same-sex "marriage" (i.e., sodomy) is fine and dandy. Wright preaches about how "governments change!" So do (obviously) denominations.

[then follows a list of various social charitable work that his church has done: which I think is great, but of course -- as always -- it includes just about everything except opposing the genocide of abortion and things like teaching chastity and sex within marriage: a message sorely needed in the African-American community with its astonishing family breakdown]

Jim Wallis [a famous white politically liberal evangelical, that I've long known about] says America’s sin of racism has never even been confessed, much less repented for.

That's sheer nonsense . . .

The God to whom the slaveholders pray as they ride on the decks of the slave ship is not the God to whom the enslaved are praying as they ride beneath the decks on that slave ship.

This is profoundly true. Funny how so much truth and folly can exist side-by-side in Wright.

We root out any teaching of superiority, inferiority, hatred, or prejudice.

Except, I guess, when talking about conservatves and Republican presidents, so that Bill Clinton is "intelligent" but George W. Bush is a "dumb Dixiecrat."

On November the 5th and on January 21st, I’ll still be a pastor. As I said, this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. It is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African-American religious tradition.

And why am I speaking out now? In our community, we have something called playing the dozens. If you think I’m going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition, and my grandma, you’ve got another thing coming.

Yeah, and in my community, we have something called "biblical Christianity," and if Wright thinks I’m going to let him lie about and distort my "Mama" the Bible, and her religious and prophetic tradition, and my Daddy, God, and His religious tradition, he's got another thing coming.

Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever’s doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. They have a different person to whom they’re accountable.

As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I’m still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That’s what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do.

Wright is every bit as "political" as he says Obama is. He wouldn't dare speak out against abortion at his church because a good half or more of the liberal women who attend it would flee, and then passing the plate wouldn't work as well and he wouldn't be able to afford his $10 million house, would he? He wouldn't dare speak out against same-sex "marriage". He can't, because this is what his denomination has just voted to support. He wouldn't dare condemn premarital sex, or divorce, or unisexist feminism. How many would leave his church, then? He couldn't even say that a black person can be a good conservative or Republican, without being branded as an Uncle Tom or an Oreo, as someone like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is habitually treated by black liberals.

That's politics, folks. That's kissing up and desiring the accolades and popularity of [liberal black] men, not God. That's not the biblical and prophetic tradition of speaking the truth, no matter how unpopular it is. There are things he can't and won't say, just as there are things Obama and any other politician, of whatever stripe won't say, and other things that they must say. He has to play his game of being a theologically and politically liberal preacher in one of the most liberal denominations in the world. I sure don't see much difference.

And there is no excuse for the things that the government, not the American people, have done. That doesn’t make me not like America or unpatriotic.

That's right. I agree. Just don't ignore the very greatest evils done by the nation you are critiquing . . .

I offered words of hope. I offered reconciliation. I offered restoration in that sermon, but nobody heard the sermon. They just heard this little sound bite of a sermon.

I heard the whole sermon. And I think it had some profound truths, alongside a number of falsehoods and distortions. And I have explained exactly what I disagree with, and why.

Well, there are many white churches and white persons who are members of churches and clergy and denominations who have already taken great steps in terms of reconciliation.

In the underground railroad, it was the white church that played the largest role in getting Africans out of slavery. In setting up almost all 40 of the HBCUs, it was the white church that sent missionaries into the south. . . . white Christians have been trying for a long time to reconcile, that for other white Christians to understand that we must be reconciled is to understand the injustice that was done to a people, as we raped the continent, brought those people here, built our country, and then defined them as less than human.

And more Christians, more of us working together, not just white Christians, but whites and blacks of every faith, ecumenically working together.

Good. I give the guy his due when he says true things and stuff that goes against a notion that he is profoundly prejudiced against white people. No; reality is more complex than that. He's a mixture of good and bad and truth and falsehood, like all human beings are.

Again, some of you do not know United Church of Christ, just found out about liberation theology, just found out about United Church of Christ, . . .

Not I. I'm quite familiar with both.

Now let's continue to have that "dialogue" that Rev. Wright and his denomination call for. Or is it already too late because I have strongly disagreed with some of his positions, and with you, and have written hard-hitting, critical things, and cited the Bible in favor of my positions?

Open Forum

Socrates (c. 469-399 B.C.)

Link to previous Open Forum.

Response to the Contra-Catholic Arguments of Protestant Pastor Bill Keller

I received an e-mail (as part of my work with the Coming Home Network) from a Catholic attempting to assist a Catholic friend, who is fond of the newsletter received from the Protestant pastor and prayer warrior Bill Keller (raised Catholic), who runs the Live Prayer ministry: once a TV show and now an Internet webcast.

Apparently, Rev. Keller was concerned about the recent visit of the Holy Father to America, and so he sent out a message critiquing the Catholic Church. It's rather conventional Baptist-type criticism (though not, blessedly, anti-Catholic). But, as you can see, it took a lot of time and effort to give some sort of reply to each falsehood and (no doubt, unintentional) misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. I could do it more easily because I've written about all the topics that he covers.

Many Catholics, I suspect, would be overwhelmed by the relentless, cumulative nature of the criticisms, even if they knew that what he asserted was false. Well, that is my job as an apologist, to respond to such things! Not everyone can spend hours doing this kind of reply. I hope it is helpful to readers. Rev. Keller's words will be in bolded typeface.

* * * * *

Pope Benedict XVI comes to the United States!

As someone who for nearly 2 decades now has rebuked and rejected those extremists who call the Roman Catholic Church a cult, the "whore of Babylon," the anti-Christ," I have also rebuked and rejected the extremists on the other side who made the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church and that you are not even saved unless you are part of that church. Both sides are equally wrong! In a document released last July, Pope Benedict XVI, the head of 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide, stated that, "other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation." This is not true and I pray that during his visit, the Pope will correct this Biblically false statement.

Every Christian group believes that it has the truest theology, or else it would hardly have a reason for existence. The Catholic claim that there is only one true Church is simply hearkening back to the views of the Church fathers and, indeed, of the Bible itself, that knows nothing of denominations. See my papers:

The Catholic Doctrine of the One True Church (New CDF Clarification): Antithetical to Ecumenism? (Dialogue with Michael Patton)

"How Does One Decide Which Church is True?"

Compelling Biblical Evidence Against Denominations and "Primary vs. Secondary" Doctrines

Denominationalism and Sectarianism

The Biblical Evidence for Priests

Apostles Can Become Bishops (Apostolic Succession)

Dialogue on Protestant vs. Catholic Ecclesiologies (Dave Armstrong vs. Dr. EL Hamilton)

Bishops in the New Testament and the Early Church

There is a lot of misunderstanding, however, about our claim that no one is saved apart from the Catholic Church. We do not believe that every person has to necessarily be a formal member of the Catholic Church to be saved. We think that if a person fully understands what the Catholic Church teaches, and rejects it, then they cannot be saved, but many do not understand our teachings, and we believe that God takes that into consideration. See the papers on this issue:

Brief Overview of the Vexed "No Salvation Outside the Church" Issue

Dialogue: Does "Salvation Outside the Church" Disprove Catholic Claims (By Internal Contradiction)?

The Catholic Church's View of Non-Catholic Christians (Karl Adam)

On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church (+ Discussion) (Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.)

The Catholic Church thinks that Protestants are fully incorporated into the Body of Christ by virtue of baptism, and that manyy graces are available within Protestantism, leading even unto salvation, if a person is unacquainted with Catholic teachings. See:

How Catholics View Protestants

This is a perfect example why I share with you so often that our final authority in all matters is the BIBLE, not whatever some man, even the Pope, says.

Catholics believe that all doctrines are in accord with; in harmony with the Bible. I've devoted my life largely to demonstrating this (with now, 16 books and over 1900 Internet papers and websites). I also demonstrate how various Protestant doctrines are not in harmony with Holy Scripture.

Liveprayer mounted a major prayer effort as this new Pope was being elected and asked God to bless his time of leadership. The Pope is a man, no more special than any other man or woman God calls to serve Him.

Of course he is more special, just as St. Peter was among the disciples and apostles (and he is his successor through an unbroken historical succession). See the abundant biblical indication for this in my papers:

50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy

Reply to a Critique of my 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy (Dave Armstrong vs. Jason Engwer)

Second Refutation of the Reductio ad Absurdum Argument for a "Pauline Papacy" (Dave Armstrong vs. Jason Engwer)

Dialogue: Is St. Paul Superior to St. Peter?

Reflections on the Papacy: The Primacy of St. Peter and Biblical Evidences

The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter the "Rock": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant)

The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant) (+ Part II)

He is flesh and bone, fallible and a sinner like all men are.

To the contrary, though he is but a man, there is biblical evidence for infallibility of both popes and Church councils. We don't disagree that popes are sinners like the rest of us. We don't teach that he is impeccable, or without sin. God can preserve the teaching of a mere man from error, just as he preserved the biblical text from error (infallibility) and went even far beyond that: positively inspiring the words of the Bible (theopneustos, or "God-breathed"). This is a greater miracles than infallibility, so if God can do one thing, He can just as easily do the lesser thing. But here is the relevant biblical data:

Biblical Evidence for Papal and Church Infallibility

I remember specifically praying that he would have a heart and passion to see the lost won for Christ. Sola scriptura, "by Scripture alone," was a foundational doctrinal principle of Martin Luther's reformation. There is no other authority outside of God's Word, and any teachings in contradiction to the Bible are heresy!

We agree with the latter statement and do not believe any Catholic teachings are in contradiction to the Bible. As for sola Scriptura (the Bible as the only final and infallible authority), that is not a biblical teaching; nor was it held by the apostles or Church Fathers. I have a ton of material on this topic, collected on two web pages:

The Bible, Church, Tradition, & Canon

The Bible: Sola Scriptura

Here are a few good introductory papers along these lines:

Tradition is Not a Dirty Word

Fictional Dialogue on Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone")

Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30) vs. Sola Scriptura and James White (Dave Armstrong vs. James White)

The Old Testament, the Ancient Jews, and Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura: An Unbiblical Tradition: Refutation of Dr. John MacArthur and Richard Bennett

The Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture

Material vs. Formal Sufficiency of Scripture

The Bible teaches that the church (ekklesia) is a body of Believers. The true church according to Scriptures is made up of those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and hold the Bible to be God's inspired, inerrant Word, representing Absolute Truth and our final authority in all matters.

This is not true. The Bible is a supreme authority, yes, but it has to be interpreted in line with the Church. That is seen in many examples given in the papers above; most notably the Jerusalem Council, recorded in Acts 15. The Church also includes sinners in its ranks, and has visible elements by which it can be identified:

The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church

Biblical Evidence for a Visible (Not Invisible) Church (+ Discussion)

Biblical Evidence for Sinners in the Church

Sins and Sinners in the Catholic Church

Sinful Church Leaders

We read in the Book of Acts about the first church birthed in Jerusalem,

Exactly, and that is where we see infallible authority of the Church, not just the Bible. Sola Scriptura is nowhere taught in the Bible.

and churches began to spring up all over the known world as the Gospel of Jesus Christ was being preached. It was nearly 400 years AD before what we know of today as the Roman Catholic Church emerged.

Hardly. We see clear signs of Catholic doctrines such as the Real presence in the Eucharist, bishops, a centralized hierarchy centered in Rome, baptismal regeneration, the communion of saints, Mariology, and so forth, from a very early period. Doctrines had to develop more fully, sure, but that is true of all Christian doctrines, so that the trinity was more fully developed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (the doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ). See my pages for the Church Fathers and development for a great deal of argumentation along these lines:

Fathers of the Church (Patristics)

Development of Doctrine

By that time, there were already thousands of Christian churches established throughout the world. What makes a true Christian church is faith in Jesus Christ and adherence to the Bible as God's Word.

And what does that Bible teach? That is the question. What does one do when two or more of these churches disagree with each other on doctrine? The NT knows nothing of doctrinal relativism. There was one truth, period. So the trick is to determine where that lies. The Church Fathers always appealed to history and apostolic succession" tracing back the true Catholic doctrine and opposing those who could not trace their doctrines back to the apostles: like the Arians (precursors of today's Jehovah's Witnesses, who deny that Jesus is God). The Arians appealed to Bible alone because they couldn't follow their heresy back to the beginning. It began in the 4th century.

So for Pope Benedict to state that all non-Roman Catholic churches are not true churches is a lie and not what the Bible teaches.

All we are doing is saying that the Bible teaches that there is but one "Church" and that we claim to be that Church. If someone wishes to argue that denominationalism and more than one Church can be found in the Bible, then let them make that argument. I contend that it cannot be done. Nor can a solely invisible Church be found in the Bible. The first thing to determine, then, is the nature of the Chuch. Then one has to figure out if this entity "The Church" exists and how to identify it.

Most troubling, however, is the Pope's claim that salvation is only achieved through the Roman Catholic Church. I hate to give the Pope a Theology 101 lesson, but there is only one way to be saved and that is through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Period!

We agree with Protestants that salvation comes through Christ alone through grace alone. God uses the Church and human instruments to convey that salvation to men. The two are not mutually exclusive. See, for example, these biblical passages:

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12,17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

Ephesians 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you...

Ephesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Peter 4:8b-10 . . . love covers a multitude of sins. Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another. As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace.

NO CHURCH CAN SAVE YOU!

We do not claim that the Catholic Church is the ultimate cause or origin of salvation. That is God alone. We are saying that God uses His own Church: that He set up by His own will, as His instrument in salvation, because human beings are not isolated individuals, with no connection to each other.

NO AMOUNT OF GOOD WORKS CAN SAVE YOU!

We agree with Protestants that man is not saved by works (i.e., the Pelagian heresy that asserts this is false). I have many papers about this:

Did the Council of Trent Teach That Man is Saved By His Own Works?

Dialogue on the Alleged Semi-Pelagianism of the Catholic Catechism (Dave Armstrong vs. Frank Turk)

Dialogue: "Doing Something" for Salvation (Dave Armstrong vs. Craig Kott)

Catholic-Baptist Dialogue on "Being Good Enough" to Go to Heaven, etc. (Dave Armstrong vs. "Grubb")

Soteriology and Creation (Man's Cooperation, Pelagianism, Nature and Grace) (Dave Armstrong vs. Peter J. Leithart)

1 Corinthians 3:9 and Man's Cooperation With God

Council of Trent: Canons of Justification

Sola fides, "by faith alone." The only way a person can be saved is by giving their heart and life to Jesus by faith working in conjunction with God's grace (Ephesians 2:8,9).

The distinctive Protestant doctrine of faith alone is distinct from grace alone through Christ alone. It is not a biblical, apostolic, or patristic doctrine. Here are some of my writings against sola fide:

A Fictional Dialogue on Justification and Salvation

Church Fathers vs. the "Reformation Pillar" of Faith Alone (Sola Fide) [Including "Revised Protestant Standard" Variant Readings] (+ Discussion)

Reflections on Faith and Works and Initial Justification

More "Catholic Verses" and Biblical Defenses of Catholicism: On Sanctification as Part of Salvation, and Merit and "Doing Something For Salvation" (+ Discussion)

This notion that being part of a church can save you is not only anti-Biblical, it is pure blasphemy! In essence, what Pope Benedict is saying is that anyone outside of the Roman Catholic Church is not saved! That is NOT what the Bible teaches and is the type of statement I would expect out of a cult leader, not the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics!

Nor is it what we teach. It is the Calvinist view that consigns people to hell solely because of an accident of birth, or never having heard the gospel message of Jesus Christ. We say only that whoever is saved is so in part because of the aid of the Catholic Church, whether they are aware of it or not, not that they will be damned if they are not formally a member of the Catholic Church.

As a side note, just last year Pope Benedict correctly stated that Islam was spread by violence and this false religions founder, Mohammed, was "evil." Sadly, he later apologized and even went to visit a Mosque in a peace making effort to those who are following the lies of Islam to hell. I chastised the Pope at the time for being a coward and apologizing for simply telling the truth, and further chastised him for visiting a Mosque for any other reason except to tell those following the lies of Islam how to be saved.

See my papers:

Dialogue: Should the Pope Kiss The Koran?: Ecumenism as an Effort to Acknowledge Partial Truth Wherever it is Found (Dave Armstrong vs. David Palm)

Should a Christian Ever Contribute to a Mosque Building Fund? / Early Christians and Jewish Synagogue and Temple Worship (+ Discussion) (Dave Armstrong vs. Grubb)

Does the Catholic Church Equate Allah and Yahweh? (+ Discussion)

It appears now that the Pope doesn't even know how to be saved and I wonder if he is trusting Jesus by faith or his church for his own salvation?

No Catholic trusts the "Church" for his or her salvation. We simply believe that there is such a thing as a visible, historical Church, with apostolic succession, that has authority, and which can bind its members to believe certain things, and require them to reject heretical, false doctrines, and that this is clearly taught in the Bible.

I find it very troubling that the Pope would seek to placate those who are following the false religion of Islam to the depths of hell, yet has no problem telling Bible-believing Christians who have put their faith in Jesus Christ that unless they are part of the Roman Catholic Church they are not saved!

Ecumenism, apologetics and evangelism are all distinct and important tasks, but they are not mutually exclusive. We live in a world with others who do not believe as we do. This conflict causes wars and much misery. So, while not watering down our own beliefs, it is good and worthwhile to build bridges with others insofar as we can do so without forsaking our own beliefs and principles. The pope, as a hugely important world figure, does all these things.

The very reaction of Catholic critics proves this, because we get misery no matter what we do. If we claim there is one Church through which we can be saved, we're accused of being narrow and dogmatic. But if we are ecumenical and reach out to Muslims as much as we can, then we are accused of forsaking the same gospel that we assert in connection with the one true Church and One True Doctrine. We can't win for losing. In effect, unless we are Protestants, we'll always be roundly condemned.

With over 200,000 of the apx 2.4 million subscribers to the Daily Devotional being part of the Roman Catholic Church, I am already prepared for the onslaught of hatred that will be heading my way in the coming days.

I have no hatred at all; just compassion and concern for the undereducated, and information to make them more knowledgeable about what they reject, so that they might even seriously consider Catholic truth claims one day.

That saddens me since one of the things I am most grateful for is how God has used Liveprayer to bring unity to the badly divided Body of Christ. Over 1/3 of those who receive the Daily Devotional each day are not Christians. Of the 2/3 who are, they are equally divided among those who go to Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Independent, and Catholic Churches. Ever since I started my public ministry in 1992, one of my greatest "big picture" goals was to help bring the Body of Christ together as one as our Lord prayed in John 17 just hours before going to the cross. Dividing the Body is something satan has been doing since the first church in the Book of Acts, what Paul warned about quite often in his letters to the churches, and what makes Christ's church so weak and ineffective today.

Nothing is more divisive than the unbiblical doctrine of denominationalism. True unity will only come through doctrinal unity, not a touchy-feely, "least common denominator" brand of low-church Protestantism. That has never brought about an end of division; only a weakening of orthodox Christian doctrine.

You see, my message then and my message now has really never changed. It is a universal message that plays to people in and out of the church. "If you don't know Jesus by faith you need to make the decision for Him today. If you do know the Lord, you need to fully surrender your life and allow Him to use you. No matter what problems you may be facing in your life today, Jesus is the answer!"

That's a fully Catholic message. What is not Catholic is to pit Jesus against His Church, that He Himself founded.

As I have shared with you often, when you die, there will be only two lines in Heaven, There won't be a line for Whites and one for Blacks. There won't be a line for Catholics and one for Protestants. There will be one line for those who know Jesus Christ as their Savior by faith, and one for those who do not! Trust me, when you take your last breath and stand before God, He is not going to ask you the name of the church you went to, only if you know Jesus as your Savior by faith!

Not quite. Actually, all that we know of such a scenario, as revealed in the Bible, shows us that God does not ask about "having Jesus as your personal Savior" at all. That's not biblical. It's Protestant lingo. The Bible teaches us that what God discusses at each person's individual judgment is what they did in their life; what they did with the faith that He gave them by His grace alone. I have documented no less than 50 examples of this:

Final Judgment in Scripture is Always Associated With Works And Never With Faith Alone (50 Passages) (+ Discussion)

In dealing with a worldwide audience of over 2.4 million people every day, I am VERY well aware of the incredible divisions there are in Christ's Body. Perhaps no division is as great as the one between Catholics and non-Catholics. The fact is, the Roman Catholic Church has a long and well-documented history. However, the reality is, it is simply a
denomination or group of churches, no different than a group of Southern Baptist, United Methodist, or Assemblies of God Churches.

None of those can be traced in historical continuity all the way back to the apostles. The Methodists derived from the Anglicans, who derived from the lustfulness of Henry VIII and his desire to break off of the Catholic Church for the reason of wanting to divorce his wife. Hardly a biblical origin . . . The Assemblies of God are only a little more than a century old, derived from the holiness movement of the 19th century, that was an offshoot of Methodism. The Baptists began with the Anabaptists in the 16th century. The Catholic Church began with Jesus commissioning Peter as the first pope in Matthew 16, and the infallible Church Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). There is no comparison. No Protestant denomination can demonstrate that it is in line with the consensus of the Fathers and the Bible. Eastern Orthodox is the only viable alternative to Catholicism, and we consider the Orthodox very close to us, and indeed, a "sister" Church.

Each group of churches or denominations has their own rich heritage, traditions, and leaders.

And they contradict each other, which means falsehood is necessarily present, and this is blatantly contrary to the Biblical teaching of the oneness of doctrine. The devil, not God, is the father of falsehood and lies.

The critical point is that while each group of churches or denominations have their own unique differences in regard to different doctrinal issues, what makes them CHRISTIAN churches are the foundational element of the Christian faith.

The Bible nowhere sanctions doctrinal contradictions. There is "one Lord, on baptism, one faith" (Paul).

Who Jesus Christ is, that salvation is through faith in Christ alone, and the Bible is God's inspired, inerrant Word and our final authority in all matters.

All Christians agree with that, not just Protestants.

THE ONE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS NOT A GROUP OF CHURCHES OR A DENOMINATION OR A BUILDING, IT IS MADE UP OF EVERY PERSON WHO HAS ACCEPTED JESUS CHRIST INTO THEIR HEARTS AND LIVES BY FAITH!!!

That's not a biblical doctrine, as I have demonstrated in many papers on ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church), listed above. Others can be found on my Church Page.

Now, let me address some of the issues about the Roman Catholic Church that have led many who know the Lord to leave that church and has caused much of the division with non-Catholics. Three of the 700+ retired ministers who serve the Lord by helping me each day respond to the over 40,000 emails that we receive are Roman Catholic Priests. Over my years of ministry, I have personally preached in over 1/2 dozen Catholic Churches (and I can assure you that I shared the unadulterated truth of the Gospel and gave an altar call as I do whenever I preach in public), and the best we can tell, approx. 200,000 of the 2.4 million plus subscribers to the Daily Devotional are Catholics. I have read and studied the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and as a student of church history am very well aware of what the Catholic Church teaches.

I wouldn't get that impression at all, in reading this . . . this person labors under many common misperceptions as to what Catholics teach, and is unaware of the historical and ideological origins of doctrines where Protestants decided to depart from the previous precedent of 1500 years.

The problem most non-Catholics have with the Catholic Church is what I call their non-Biblical traditions, which by the way, ALL groups of churches or denominations have.

Amen! I deny that our traditions are "non-Biblical" in the sense that they contradict the Bible at all. Each doctrine has to be discussed on its own, in light of biblical data that is relevant to it.

I don't have the time to go through a complete list but the main ones are how they deal with the mother of Jesus, Mary. She was a virgin when she was immaculately conceived by the Holy Spirit, however, she was a person of flesh and blood like you and I

No argument there . . .

and was born with sin just like you and I were.

That's not what Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, believed. He held to a version of the Immaculate Conception very similar to the Catholic belief. I have demonstrated that Mary's sinlessness (the main element of the Immaculate Conception) is taught in the Bible itself:

"All Have Sinned . . . " (Mary?)

Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations

Dialogue on the Exegesis of Luke 1:28 ("Full of Grace"), and the Immaculate Conception (Dave Armstrong vs. Ken Temple)

Dialogue with an Evangelical Protestant on Catholic Mariology (including an explicitly biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, from Luke 1:28, related exegesis, and the meaning of grace) (Dave Armstrong vs. Jack DisPennett)

She also had other children as we know from the Scriptures.

We don't know that at all, which is why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the English "Reformers" and many Protestants since that time (such as John Wesley) have accepted Mary's perpetual virginity. See:

Replies to Protestants' Alleged Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Dave Armstrong vs. Ken Temple)

Dialogue on Supposed Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Round Two (+ Part Two / Part Three) (Dave Armstrong vs. Ken Temple)

Dialogue on Supposed Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Round Three (Dave Armstrong vs. Ken Temple)

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

Why Catholics Believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Blog Group Discussion on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, With Protestants (Part II - includes the entire section on this subject from my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, starting here)

There is nothing wrong with honoring her for the incredible role God chose her to play in her life, but she is NOT a deity

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is a god. And this person claims to have studied and understood our doctrines?

and praying to her is as meaningless as it is to pray to any other person who is dead (including those the Catholic Church has deemed to be "saints") or alive. There is only ONE person we pray to and that is Jesus.

We ask her to intercede for us, because the saints in heaven are more alive than we are. The biblical evidence in favor of such a communion of saints, is abundant:

The Communion of Saints: Biblical Overview

Reflections on the Communion of Saints

Dialogue on Objections to the Communion of Saints

Witnesses of Hebrews 12:1

Answers For An Inquiring "Bible Christian" on "Praying to Dead Saints" (Including a Newly-Discovered Biblical Argument For Same)

Intercession and Invocation of the Saints: How is it Different From Magic?

Biblical Evidence (Suggested by Protestants Like Jonathan Edwards) For Saints in Heaven Being Aware of Earthly Events (+ Discussion)

Dead Saints: Are They Playing Harps on Clouds or Interceding for Us?

Dialogue on Dead Saints (Are They Playing Harps on Clouds or Interceding for Us?) (Dave Armstrong vs. "Grubb")

Samuel the Prophet Appearing to Saul as an Argument for the Communion of Saints: Clarification For Protestant Critic Douglas Mabry (+ Discussion)

Another big issue in the Catholic Church is Communion. The tradition of the Catholic Church is that the wafer representing the body of our Lord and the wine representing His blood literally becomes the body and blood of Christ. That is a very real theological argument that Scripture does not support,

That is hardly the case:

"Is This God?" (Treatise on the Blessed Eucharist, including Critique by Protestant Polemicist Jason Vanezia, and Counter-Reply)

A Fictional Dialogue on the Real Presence in the Eucharist

Reflections on the Holy Eucharist

but I don't see that as an area for major contention. The Bible exhorts us to take Communion often in remembrance of the sacrifice of our Lord and there are those who believe based on certain verses it becomes the literal body and blood of Christ.

Including all the Church Fathers:

History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist: Nine Protestant Scholarly Sources

St. Augustine's Belief in the Real Presence

Clarifications (Under Fire), of St. Augustine's Eucharistic Doctrine, and a Counter-Challenge to Protestants Who Try to "Co-Opt" Him

And Martin Luther:

The Protestant Sacramentarian Controversies (Calvin vs. Luther vs. Zwingli)

Martin Luther Refutes Zwingli and Other Deniers of the Real Presence

Another issue that I don't think is that important is confessing your sins to a Priest. The Bible tells us to confess our sins one to another, so there is nothing wrong if it is your Priest you choose to do that with. However, please understand that NO MAN, only Jesus can forgive you of your sins since it was only Jesus who died for your sins.

Another false dichotomy. The Bible and the Catholic Church teach that priests represent God and offer absolution, which is forgiveness coming from God, through the priest, to the penitent. See:

Biblical Evidence for Formal Forgiveness of Sins and Absolution (Confession)

Another issue that is critical to talk about is salvation. There are some who teach in error (just like some non-Catholic churches do) that you can do enough good works to earn your way into Heaven which is clearly refuted by Ephesians 2:8-9.

The Catholic Church does not teach salvation by works (see the relevant papers above).

Those who teach this point to the passage in James that "Faith without works is dead." The fact is that passage was written to people who were already saved. The Bible clearly teaches that a person who is truly saved will have "fruit" or good works follow them. These good works do not save them but flow from their salvation.

This is what Protestants teach, but it is not found in the Bible, which teaches an organic relationship between faith and works, justification and sanctification.

Lastly is the Bible. The Catholic Bible has 6 historical books known as the
Apocrypha

It's seven books, and we call them the deuterocanonical books.

that deal with those 400 years from the end of Malachi, the end of the Old Testament, to the start of the New Testament. These books were never found to be inspired or inerrant

That's not true. They were accepted by the early Church and all through history up till Protestantism arrived 15 centuries after Christ:

The "Apocrypha": Why It's Part of the Bible

Reply Concerning the Canonicity of the So-Called "Apocrypha" (Dave Armstrong vs. Dr. John Ankerberg & Dr. John Weldon)

Dialogue on Objections to the "Apocrypha" (Dave Armstrong vs. Dr. Norman Geisler)

and thus are not part of the 66 books we call the Bible.

That's completely arbitrary. Protestants have no way to determine an authoritative canon except by Catholic Church authority. The same councils that decreed the canonicity of the 27 NT books also accepted these seven books as part of the OT canon.

The Bible is God's inspired, inerrant Word, representing Absolute Truth and our final authority in all matters. It, and it alone is our authority and overrides any teachings or traditions of man.

Including the many false Protestant traditions (many of which I have here critiqued).

Since the 1970's, there has been a very active and growing Charismatic group within the Roman Catholic Church that is as Pentecostal as any Pentecostal Church you will ever attend. Also, in the past 10 years, there is a growing and strong evangelical movement within the Catholic Church. They are working within the Church to bring back a greater emphasis on the Word of God and on the message of salvation and less emphasis on the traditions of the Catholic Church.

These things are not mutually exclusive. There is apostolic traditions and mere traditions of men. We accept the former, and deny the latter (which is what, in fact, all false teachings of Protestantism are).

Many people who know Christ as their Savior by faith have chosen to stay in the Catholic Church. They are just as saved, love the Lord, and honor His Word as much as anyone who attends a non-Catholic Church.

Good. But usually, in the final analysis, if these Catholics are regarded as "saved" in this line of thought, it is (so it is said) in spite of all the false Catholic teaching, not because of it.

Are there people in the Catholic Church who aren't saved? Of course! Just like there are people in any church who are not saved. My friend, your Catholic church can't save you, your Methodist Church can't save you, your Baptist Church can't save you, your Pentecostal Church can't save you, only faith in Jesus Christ can save you! Being baptized can't save you,

The Bible says it can:

A Fictional Dialogue on Infant Baptism

Dialogue on the Biblical Evidence for Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration (Dave Armstrong vs. Jack DisPennett)

the faith of your parents can't save you, no amount of good works can save you, ONLY FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST CAN SAVE YOU!!!

AMEN!!!!

I love you and care about you so much.

Likewise.

I watch daily as Satan works to divide the Body of Christ, and perhaps there is no division as great as the one between Catholics and non-Catholics. Pope Benedict greatly contributed to that division last summer by stating that all non-Catholic churches are not true churches and you can only be saved through the Roman Catholic Church. If the Pope really believes this, he is in complete rebellion to what the Bible teaches!

Quite the contrary, as I have already shown. It is denominationalism and doctrinal relativism and deliberate separation from the institutional Church (the sin of schism) which is utterly unacceptable, according to the Bible.

Catholics around the world who have a real relationship with Christ MUST SPEAK OUT! You cannot let the heresy of one man, even the Pope, turn your great church which is based on God's Word into a cult. That is why God gave us His Word, so that we don't have to rely on what men say, but on what He says!

A "cult" is a group that denies the Holy Trinity. Pope Benedict XVI has declared nothing that is not true.

My greatest prayer of all is that during his visit, as tens of thousands of people gather to hear the Pope, tens of millions more watching by television, that he would clearly lay out the fact that we are saved by our faith in Christ alone and challenge all who hear him to surrender their hearts and lives by faith to Jesus. It could be the greatest altar call ever given if he would let the Holy Spirit guide him and use him to bring the greatest truth of all to those who will be listening to him speak.

We teach this already.

Martin Luther's break with the Catholic Church took place at a time when the Catholic Church was more of a political entity than a spiritual one. Luther wanted to get back to the foundation of the faith, that being salvation is through God's grace and our faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), or sola fides, and the final authority of God's Word, or sola scriptura.

Neither of these two "solas" is a biblical doctrine, as I have shown times without number.

What makes us Christians is that we are bonded by the shed blood of Jesus Christ and God's Word, not the teachings of men or the name on the building we choose to worship in, but the Truth of the Bible and our faith in Jesus Christ!!!

There is no need to pit the Bible against the Church. This Bible teaches that there is such a thing as a Church, and that its nature is like what we see in the Catholic Church.

Links to Articles Concerning the Catholic Pedophilia Scandal

Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller of Regensburg apologizes September 21, 2007, for reappointing a convicted pedophile priest to a parish in the Bavarian town of Riekofen, Germany. The priest was arrested August 30 for sexually abusing an under-age altar boy.

* * * * *

For general background information (but not from a specifically Catholic source), see;

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases (Wikipedia)

* * * * *

The Uses of Clerical Scandal (Philip Jenkins / First Things) [February 1996]

Entangled on the Web (James Hitchcock) [April 2001]

The Price of Priestly Pederasty (Dan Michalski / Crisis) [October 2001]

Lawlessness In Boston: On Bernard Cardinal Law (William F. Buckley, Jr.) [2-12-02]

Public Response to Those Who Left the Church Due to the Scandal (Mark Shea) [2-13-02]

More Viewer Reaction to the Boston Travesty (Letters and Reply by Mark Shea) [2-19-02]

Should Cardinal Law Step Down? (Two letters and Reply by Mark Shea) [2-21-02]

Wages of Relativism: A Catholic priest responds to an NR cover story (Benedict J. Groeschel) [2-28-02]

The Myth of the Pedophile Priest (Philip Jenkins) [3-3-02]

Catholics and Scandals: What is happening to the clergy? (William F. Buckley, Jr.) [3-15-02]

Should Gay Priests Adopt? (Ann Coulter) [3-21-02]

The Pope's First Statement (Peggy Noonan) [3-22-02]

Catholic bashing and pedophile priests (Michael Medved) [3-25-02]

How should the Church respond? (Alan Keyes) [3-25-02]

Dark Hour (Mark Shea) [3-29-02]

Can the Church Survive? (William F. Buckley, Jr.) [4-1-02]

Scandal Time (Fr. Richard John Neuhaus / First Things) [April 2002]

A Time for Redemption (David Reinhard) [May 2002]

Scandal Time (Continued) (Fr. Richard John Neuhaus / First Things) [July 2002]

Shaken by Scandals: Catholics Speak Out About Priests' Sexual Abuse (book edited by Paul Thigpen) [July 2002]

Scandal Time: What the Dallas Meeting of Bishops Was Really About (Fr. Richard John Neuhaus) [8-20-02]

Scandal Time III (Fr. Richard John Neuhaus / First Things) [September 2002]

Q&A: Understanding the Priest Scandal (Catholic Answers / This Rock) [November 2002]

Catholic Scandals: A Crisis for Celibacy?: The Real Story Behind Clerical "Pedophilia" & What It Really Means (Leon J. Podles / Touchstone) [2002]

Answering Scandal with Personal Holiness (Fr. Roger J. Landry) [2002]

10 Myths about Priestly Pedophilia (Crisis) [2002]

Don't Get Mad, Get Holy: Overcoming Evil with Good (Leon J. Suprenant, Jr.) [2002]

Courage in Scandal (George Weigel) [2002]

Editorial Says Cases of Priest Pedophilia Exaggerated (Catholic Exchange) [2-27-03]

Loving the Church in a Time of Scandal (Tom Allen) [4-17-03]

Lay vs. Clergy Perceptions of the Scandal (Mark Shea) [5-28-03]

Dissecting the Anatomy of the Sexual Scandal (Joseph A. Varacalli / Homiletic & Pastoral Review) [January 2004]

Golden Opportunity (Russell Shaw) [2-23-04]

Something I've Been Puzzling Over For Some Time (Mark Shea) [7-1-04]

Reply to Allegations That Then-Cardinal Ratzinger "Obstructed" a Sex Abuse Inquiry (Jimmy Akin) [4-29-05]

Truth and Tolerance, Again (Fr. Richard John Neuhaus / First Things) [November 2005]

All in the Family: Responding to the USCCB Call to Prevent Child Abuse (Heidi Hess Saxton) [4-11-08]

Pope Benedict among Americans (Russell Shaw) [4-17-08]

My old argument with Rod [Dreher] (Mark Shea) [4-17-08]

Pope Benedict XVI's Remarks on the Scandal to US Bishops: 16 April 2008
(source)

Among the countersigns to the Gospel of life found in America and elsewhere is one that causes deep shame: the sexual abuse of minors. Many of you have spoken to me of the enormous pain that your communities have suffered when clerics have betrayed their priestly obligations and duties by such gravely immoral behavior. As you strive to eliminate this evil wherever it occurs, you may be assured of the prayerful support of God’s people throughout the world. Rightly, you attach priority to showing compassion and care to the victims. It is your God-given responsibility as pastors to bind up the wounds caused by every breach of trust, to foster healing, to promote reconciliation and to reach out with loving concern to those so seriously wronged.

Responding to this situation has not been easy and, as the President of your Episcopal Conference has indicated, it was “sometimes very badly handled”. Now that the scale and gravity of the problem is more clearly understood, you have been able to adopt more focused remedial and disciplinary measures and to promote a safe environment that gives greater protection to young people. While it must be remembered that the overwhelming majority of clergy and religious in America do outstanding work in bringing the liberating message of the Gospel to the people entrusted to their care, it is vitally important that the vulnerable always be shielded from those who would cause harm. In this regard, your efforts to heal and protect are bearing great fruit not only for those directly under your pastoral care, but for all of society.

If they are to achieve their full purpose, however, the policies and programs you have adopted need to be placed in a wider context. Children deserve to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships. They should be spared the degrading manifestations and the crude manipulation of sexuality so prevalent today. They have a right to be educated in authentic moral values rooted in the dignity of the human person. This brings us back to our consideration of the centrality of the family and the need to promote the Gospel of life. What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today? We need to reassess urgently the values underpinning society, so that a sound moral formation can be offered to young people and adults alike. All have a part to play in this task - not only parents, religious leaders, teachers and catechists, but the media and entertainment industries as well. Indeed, every member of society can contribute to this moral renewal and benefit from it. Truly caring about young people and the future of our civilization means recognizing our responsibility to promote and live by the authentic moral values which alone enable the human person to flourish. It falls to you, as pastors modelled upon Christ, the Good Shepherd, to proclaim this message loud and clear, and thus to address the sin of abuse within the wider context of sexual mores. Moreover, by acknowledging and confronting the problem when it occurs in an ecclesial setting, you can give a lead to others, since this scourge is found not only within your Dioceses, but in every sector of society. It calls for a determined, collective response.

Priests, too, need your guidance and closeness during this difficult time. They have experienced shame over what has occurred, and there are those who feel they have lost some of the trust and esteem they once enjoyed. Not a few are experiencing a closeness to Christ in his Passion as they struggle to come to terms with the consequences of the crisis. The Bishop, as father, brother and friend of his priests, can help them to draw spiritual fruit from this union with Christ by making them aware of the Lord’s consoling presence in the midst of their suffering, and by encouraging them to walk with the Lord along the path of hope (cf. Spe Salvi, 39). As Pope John Paul II observed six years ago, “we must be confident that this time of trial will bring a purification of the entire Catholic community”, leading to “a holier priesthood, a holier episcopate and a holier Church” (Address to the Cardinals of the United States, 23 April 2002, 4). There are many signs that, during the intervening period, such purification has indeed been taking place. Christ’s abiding presence in the midst of our suffering is gradually transforming our darkness into light: all things are indeed being made new in Christ Jesus our hope.

At this stage a vital part of your task is to strengthen relationships with your clergy, especially in those cases where tension has arisen between priests and their bishops in the wake of the crisis. It is important that you continue to show them your concern, to support them, and to lead by example. In this way you will surely help them to encounter the living God, and point them towards the life-transforming hope of which the Gospel speaks. If you yourselves live in a manner closely configured to Christ, the Good Shepherd, who laid down his life for his sheep, you will inspire your brother priests to rededicate themselves to the service of their flocks with Christ-like generosity. Indeed a clearer focus upon the imitation of Christ in holiness of life is exactly what is needed in order for us to move forward. We need to rediscover the joy of living a Christ-centred life, cultivating the virtues, and immersing ourselves in prayer. When the faithful know that their pastor is a man who prays and who dedicates his life to serving them, they respond with warmth and affection which nourishes and sustains the life of the whole community.

Related Papers

Scandalous Sexual Misconduct Committed by Protestant Clergy (edited by Dave Armstrong)

"It Ain't Just Catholic Priests": More Resources on Shocking Statistics of Sexual Abuse and Molestation by Protestant (and Orthodox & Jewish) Clergy

Has the Clergy Sexual Scandal in the US Caused a Huge Drop or "Crisis" in Vocations?

Kevin Johnson Argues (Amazingly) That Episcopal Ecclesiology is a Key Explanation of the Allegedly "Systemic" Tragedy of Molesting Priests (+ Discussion)

Kevin Johnson's Latest Slander: Catholic Apologists Care Little -- If At All -- About Children Who Have Been Molested by Evil Priests (+ Discussion)

Was Luther Primarily Responsible For Hitler?

I was alerted to a discussion on Jimmy Akin's blog where my name was brought up in connection with this issue (complete with the obligatory anti-Catholic insult). Someone had mentioned (innocently) that I had cited Protestant historian William Shirer's 1960 book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, making mention of Luther, in one of my papers (as it turned out, an older version, recently revised: just in the last few weeks). Here is the entire citation, dated 19 September 2004:

Mr. [Doe] mentions in passing my criticism of Luther's "pre-involvement with Nazi Germany" (whatever that could possibly mean). Of course, the casual reader has no idea what the context of this was, nor that it was not my own expressed opinion at all, but rather, that of Protestant William Shirer, in his 1600-page epic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (by all accounts one of the most well-known histories of that tragic time and place). Here is what Shirer stated:

It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two things: their history and the influence of Martin Luther. The great founder of Protestantism was both a passionate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute obedience to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the Jews and . . . advised that . . .

they be put under a roof or stable, like the Gypsies. in misery and captivity . . .

-- advice that was literally followed four centuries later by Hitler, Goering and Himmler . . . In . . . the peasant uprising of 1525, Luther advised the princes to adopt the most ruthless measures against the 'mad dogs' . . . Here, as in his utterances about the Jews, Luther employed a coarseness and brutality of language unequalled in German history until the Nazi time. The influence of this towering figure extended down the generations in Germany, especially among the Protestants. Among other results was the ease with which German Protestantism became the instrument of royal and priestly absolutism . . . until the kings and princes were overthrown in 1918 .

. . . In no country, with the exception of Czarist Russia, did the clergy become by tradition so completely servile to the political authority of the state . . . Like Niemoeller, most of the pastors welcomed the advent of Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship in 1933 . . . Hitler . . . had always had a certain contempt for the Protestants: . . . .

You can do anything you want with them. They will submit . . . they are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs . . .

He was well aware that the resistance to the Nazification of the Protestant churches came from a minority of pastors and an even smaller minority of worshipers.

(New York: Fawcett Crest, 1960, pp. 326-329)

Now, if Mr. [Doe] doesn't like this opinion, let him argue with William Shirer about it.

In fairness to my critic, "Jeb Protestant," who wrote on that blog today: "I would be skeptical about anything Dave Armstrong or William Shirer says," it is true that I was more harsh on Luther in the post (as indicated by my use of this citation) than I am today. My views have softened considerably since my "new convert" period when I was quite disenchanted with Martin Luther, having discovered a lot of new things that I had never heard before.

Opinions (at least in a conscientious thinker) evolve and grow over time. Luther had been a huge hero of mine, and there is a certain disappointment that one goes through in learning about the fuller historical picture (one that is often hidden from view in too many -- not all, by any means -- Protestant treatments). With the passing of time, and many hundreds of pages more study, I think I am a lot more objective now in writing about Martin Luther than I was seventeen years ago.

I wrote in a very old paper of mine about Luther (from 1990 or 1991, right after I converted), introducing the same Shirer quote (just after having discussed some of his notorious remarks about the Jews),

May God have mercy on a man with an abominable mouth and pen like Luther's. For, without much reflection, one can imagine the implications of such venomous talk for the later history of Germany.

That's tough language, for sure, but as we shall see, it is little more than what many Protestant or otherwise non-Catholic historians have also stated. It also should be mentioned in fairness to me, that in the original paper I wrote criticizing Luther, dated 14 January 1991 (I had to dig the original paper manuscript out of piles of old papers of mine!), immediately after the Shirer quotation, I wrote:

Catholicism, on the other hand, while not totally unblemished with regard to Nazism . . .

So we see that I was not totally blaming Luther and Lutheranism for the Nazi tragedy, even in the period when I was most critical of Luther. With that background in mind, here is what I wrote on Jimmy Akin's blog, on this general issue and my own opinion:

Shirer is not the only one who has made the connection between Luther's political-ecclesiological thought and the Nazis. How about Alister McGrath: perhaps the foremost Protestant historian writing today?:

As the Peasants' Revolt loomed on the horizon, however, it seems that the deficiencies of his political thought became obvious . . . This understanding of the relation of church and state has been the object of intense criticism. Luther's social ethic has been described as 'defeatist' and 'quietist', encouraging the Christian to tolerate (or at least fail to oppose) unjust social structures. Luther preferred oppression to revolution . . . The Peasants' War seemed to show up the tensions within Luther's social ethic: the peasants were supposed to live in accordance with the private ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, turning the other cheek to their oppressors -- while the princes were justified in using violent coercive means to re-establish social order. And although Luther maintained that the magistrate had no authority in the church, except as a Christian believer, the technical distinction involved was so tenuous as to be unworkable. The way was opened to the eventual domination of the church by the state, which was to become a virtually universal feature of Lutheranism. The failure of the German church to oppose Hitler in the 1930s is widely seen as reflecting the inadequacies of Luther's political thought. Even Hitler, it appeared to some German Christians, was an instrument of God.

(Reformation Thought: An Introduction, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2nd edition, 1993, 209-210)

A major Lutheran biographer of Luther, Heiko A. Oberman, makes similar comments:

The Third Reich and in its wake the whole Western world capitalized upon Luther, the fierce Jew-baiter. Any attempt to deal with the Reformer runs up against this obstacle. No description of Luther's campaign against the Jews, however objective and erudite it may be, escapes the horror: we live in the post-Holocaust era . . . Luther's late writings on the Jews are crucial to this agonizing but necessary task of remembering . . .

(Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, translated by Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart, New York: Doubleday Image, 1992, 292)

I haven't even staked out a definite position on this particular matter. I was simply citing non-Catholics who saw a relationship between the two. I just finished a new book on Luther on Thursday and I didn't say anything about either Nazi Germany or Luther's well-known negative comments about Jews, and in fact, a third of the book was devoted to praise of Luther when he held a view that is entirely or largely Catholic.

There are all kinds of myths about what I supposedly believe (especially regarding Martin Luther). Jeb Protestant is no accurate guide to my thinking, I can assure everyone here! I wouldn't classify him as a troll, but he doesn't engage me in what I would call dialogue, when he shows up on my site.

I recently revised some of my Luther papers, and the Shirer quote appears to not even be in my current papers anymore (I just did a search of my site to try to find it). That's how much I cared about its importance. The link given above was to an older version of one paper, from Internet Archive. But the above two citations remain. If Protestants want to gripe about these two very prominent historians and their opinions about Luther and later anti-Semitism, then that has nothing to do with me.

Just to set the record straight. Aren't facts and documentation wonderful things?

I should also add, to clarify my position, that there is plenty of detestable anti-Semitism in Catholic history as well (as the present pope and the previous one have both solemnly acknowledged), so that I would reject any attempt to pin the blame of ultimate or sole causation of Nazism on Lutheranism. I am one who believes that historical causation is an extremely complicated, multi-faceted thing: rarely able to be narrowed down to one cause. I don't think reality (and particularly the history and influence of ideas) works that way.

The past has enough scandal in this regard to shame all three major branches of Christianity. I would oppose anyone, however, who tried to deny any connection between Luther's anti-Semitism and political teaching, and Nazi Germany. There clearly is an influence to some degree there, that cannot be denied by anyone acquainted with the relevant facts.

The person who made the link (a Catholic who was simply offering further historical information) expressed a willingness to remove the link to an older paper if I didn't want it there, but I wrote:

No, that's fine. No problem. I don't repudiate the old article or have a problem with you citing it. I was just observing that since this citation is no longer even on my site, obviously I didn't consider it important enough to retain, and that this doesn't fit in with the impression (held mostly by anti-Catholics) that I wish to "bash" Luther by (among other things) linking him to Hitler.

My view is far more complex and nuanced than that. Whatever I hold in this regard is scarcely distinguishable from non-Catholic historians like McGrath and Oberman. In other words, it is not a "Catholic" apologetic thing; it is a factual, historical thing that can't be confined to mere apologetics or polemics. Such fine distinctions, however, are not exactly a notable trait of anti-Catholic Protestants, who find it hard to imagine that a Catholic apologist like myself actually admires Luther in many ways and does not consider him an "evil" or insincere man.

And this considerable admiration was, by the way, strongly reiterated in the Introduction to my recent book: Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise.

Also, I discovered that McGrath, in the book cited above (p. 271, footnote 6), wrote:

See the famous letter of Karl Barth (1939), in which he asserted that 'The German people suffer . . . from the mistake of Martin Luther regarding the relation of Law and Gospel, of temporal and spiritual order and power': quoted by Helmut Thielicke, Theological Ethics (3 vols; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1979), vol. 1, p. 368.

This goes far beyond what I would ever assert. Barth seems (though it doesn't necessarily follow, logically) to assert Luther as the direct and/or primary cause of the Nazi tragedy. McGrath possibly tacitly assents to the same sentiment by citing it.

Ironically, the most notorious treatise on this topic is not by a Catholic (let alone a dreaded "apologist"), but from a Lutheran from Berlin: Peter F. Wiener. It's called Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor. He expressed trepidation that he "might be accused of having come under Roman Catholic influence and trying to convert my pupils."

Moreover, Wiener actually adopts an ultimately "moderate" position on the controversy not unlike the one I (and many others) have taken:

LET me sum up. First of all, I have to repeat my thesis: I do not believe myself, nor have I wanted to give the impression, that Luther and Lutheranism are the sole source of our present-day troubles. Economic, political, geographical, and many other causes have to be taken into account if we want to explain the destructive present-day mentality of the Germans, which is above all other causes to blame for the misery in which the modern world finds itself twice within a third of a century.

I did not mean for one minute either to deny that there are things that are good and laudable in Luther—that he pronounced and taught some very fine things which, if they had become the ethical standard of modern Europe, might have brought us peace and prosperity instead of war and misery. All I maintain is that Luther and his doctrines are one of the causes why Europe could follow such a fatal road—that Luther, the man and his teaching, had many disastrous sides, as well as good ones. This negative aspect of Lutheranism is not only generally ignored, but is just the very aspect which as influenced German ethics and standards.

Wikipedia provides an in-depth article on Luther and Anti-Semitism. Some excerpts:

Franklin Sherman, editor of volume 47 of the American Edition of Luther's Works in which On the Jews and Their Lies appears, responds to the claim that "Luther's antipathy towards the Jews was religious rather than racial in nature," Luther's writings against the Jews, he explains, are not "merely a set of cool, calm and collected theological judgments. His writings are full of rage, and indeed hatred, against an identifiable human group, not just against a religious point of view; it is against that group that his action proposals are directed." Sherman argues that Luther "cannot be distanced completely from modern antisemites." Regarding Luther's treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies, the German philosopher Karl Jaspers wrote: "There you already have the whole Nazi program"). . . .

Martin Brecht in his extensive three volume biography of Luther writes that "an evaluation of Luther's relationship with the Jews must be made." . . .

Brecht ends his evaluation:

Luther, however, was not involved with later racial anti-Semitism. There is a world of difference between his belief in salvation and a racial ideology. Nevertheless, his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully became one of the "church fathers" of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of the Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer.

[Martin Luther, 3 vols., Volume three: The Preservation of the Church 1532-1546, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), Vol. III:351] . . .

In 1983 The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod denounced Luther's "hostile attitude" toward the Jews.The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in an essay on Lutheran-Jewish relations, observed that "Over the years, Luther’s anti-Jewish writings have continued to be reproduced in pamphlets and other works by neo-Nazi and antisemitic groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan." . . .

In 1994 the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America publicly rejected Luther's antisemitic writings, saying "We who bear his name and heritage must acknowledge with pain the anti-Judaic diatribes contained in Luther's later writings. We reject this violent invective as did many of his companions in the sixteenth century, and we are moved to deep and abiding sorrow at its tragic effects on later generations of Jews."

In 1995 the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada made similar statements, as did the Austrian Evangelical Church in 1998. In the same year, the Land Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria, on the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht, issued a declaration saying: "It is imperative for the Lutheran Church, which knows itself to be indebted to the work and tradition of Martin Luther, to take seriously also his anti-Jewish utterances, to acknowledge their theological function, and to reflect on their consequences. It has to distance itself from every [expression of] anti-Judaism in Lutheran theology."

"Reformation" Theft of Catholic Church Properties and Supposed Catholic Apologetic "Blind Spots": Counter-Response to Tim Enloe

Ruins of Whitby Abbey

See my original post, How the Early Protestants Stole Thousands of Catholic Churches and Monasteries and Called These Mortal Sins “Reform”, and the ensuing combox discussion. Reformed writer and graduate student in Church history Tim Enloe replied and I counter-replied (one / two). He responded again, and so did I. He then wrote a fairly lengthy post on his blog, entitled: Stealing the Monasteries. I shall now reply to that piece here, with his words in blue. I cite every word of his post below (whereas he did not make a single citation of my words in his). I already made an initial reply in the combox.

* * * * *

Dave’s initial response was merely to lambaste the Reformers as revolutionaries who exaggerated the problems with the papacy merely to justify a program of rebellion against lawful authority.

I wrote in that first reply:

It's been the standard response through the years of Protestants to play up and grossly exaggerate the sins of the Catholic Church to justify the sins of the Reformers.

I wasn't "lambasting" the Reformers per se here, but rather, historical revisionism ("standard response through the years") of Protestants, up to the present period. We see Tim himself quite arguably engaging in some of that, in his replies, because he refuses to directly face this outrage and own up to it (though I think his efforts are more correctly identified as a non sequitur or changing the subject).

At the same time, he wants to rail about historic Catholic sins that no one denies. Note that he feels perfectly within his rights to frequently do that (I don't care if he does, one way or the other; let him rail against sin. I have no problem with it), yet if anyone dares make a similar analysis of Protestant scandals and sins, he cries "foul." This is rather common (almost a knee-jerk reaction) among those who set out to defend historic Protestantism, if I do say so.

I would like to suggest to Tim that if he wants to be successful at highlighting historic Catholic sins, and educating folks about them, that he not be so reticent about doing the same regarding Protestant historic sins. No one is gonna buy the scenario that only one side is guilty of these.

As for the "Reformers" themselves playing up Catholic sin, there is simply no question about this. Martin Luther, in particular, is notorious for these sins of bearing false witness. Examples are innumerable: so many that I don't feel that it is necessary to document this tendency of his (it's almost embarrassing to have to demonstrate something so glaringly obvious), but here are just a few examples for good measure:

. . . the popes . . . are bitter enemies of the church . . . Pope, cardinals, bishops, not a soul of them has read the Bible; 'tis a book unknown to them. (#429, p. 243)

. . . The pope and his crew are mere worshippers of idols, and servants of the devil. (#446, p. 249)

(Table-Talk, translated by William Hazlitt, Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society: n.d.)

. . . The sum of it all is that pope, devil, and his church hate the estate of matrimony, as Daniel says [17:37]; therefore he wants to bring it into such disgrace that a married man cannot fill a priest's office. That is as much as to say that marriage is harlotry, sin, impure, and rejected by God; and although they say, at the same time, that it is holy and a sacrament, that is a lie of their false hearts, for if they seriously considered it holy, and a sacrament, they would not forbid the priests to marry. Because they do forbid them, they must consider it unclean, and a sin, as they plainly say . . .

. . . the noises made by monks and nuns and priests are not prayers or praises to God. They do not understand it and learn nothing from it; they do it like hard labor, for the belly's sake, and seek thereby no improvement of life, no progress in holiness, no doing of God's will.

(On the Councils and the Churches [1539], Part II. From: Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Co. & The Castle Press, 1931, Vol. 5. Translation by Charles M. Jacobs)

Now, Tim can try to deny this strong tendency if he wishes, but he does so with his head in the sand, and against reputable historiography, Catholic or Protestant. It's equally obvious and manifest that Thomas Cromwell and his ilk in the English "Reformation" offered similar ridiculous exaggerations of what was going on in the monasteries, as a pretense to seize them for their own (and the king's) enrichment, as I documented in my paper. Many historians can be produced to back this up. This isn't just "militant Catholic apologetics." It is historical fact. Tim, as a future historian, can war against that if he likes, but I find it rather odd, especially seeing what he is planning to do as his vocation.

To that I simply re-emphasized the critiques of good, loyal, orthodox Catholics such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Dominic, and St. Francis.

Bringing up valid critiques of faithful Catholics, four centuries earlier, is hardly relevant to the early Protestants and their facile justifications for stealing property (and forbidding the Mass, and banishing Catholics, etc., etc., etc.).

I could have added a number of voices from the 15th century, even some who were otherwise completely loyal to the papacy. In my posts “The Grievances of the German Nation and the Need for Reforming Society “In Head and Members”,” “Reformation Before the Reformation,” and “The Insolence of Ecclesiastical Princes” (all found on this site), I have chronicled complaints against papal simony during the 15th century.

Great. What does that have to do with Henry VIII stealing many hundreds of properties and butchering (often by hanging, drawing, and quartering) monks who denied that he was the head of the Church? Nothing, of course . . .

Ironically given Dave Armstrong’s complaints against the Reformers, papal simony often involved the papacy in the mortal sin of stealing, both financially and spiritually, from its flock. This was true in the cases of papal reservation of benefices for reasons of the popes appropriating (Church) monies to fund their secular wars, and this is as yet to say nothing of such gross abuses as were occurring in Luther’s day in terms of papal agents selling indulgences for purposes of paying for new buildings so as to shore up the papacy’s temporal magnificence.

No one (last of all, myself) denies that these things went on. It doesn't follow from this that Catholic Church properties were not Catholic, and that Protestants were perfectly justified to seize them. That makes no sense. Say, for example, that a church was built with funds obtained by sinful means, amounting to 38% of the total cost of the building. Okay, now the Protestant ragtag armies of righteousness and noble virtue come to steal this same property. But do the Protestants distribute 38% of its value to the Catholic parishioners? Of course not. Not a chance. That ain't part of the plan. All of those ignorant people are idolaters and don't deserve anything but to be banished from the territory.

Even Luther noted and decried the greed of some of the folks who "appropriated" property (with his usual naivete in denying that his own words played any role in bringing about such theft in the first place). So someone like Tim can rant and rave about corruption in building projects while under Catholic auspices, but it doesn't justify Protestant theft and plunder: not in the least.
This is elementary ethics: Christian Morality 0101.

Tim wants to talk about Catholic sins. I'm happy to let him do so on my blog, by citing his words and replying to them (whereas his post allowed no comments). But I will not stand idly by and let him rationalize the sin of stealing under illogical pretenses. He must be called on this, because his reasoning cannot withstand any scrutiny. And by the same token, I have every "right" to highlight Protestant sins that virtually no one has ever heard about at all.

Why is that so objectionable? We shouldn't even be having this conversation. Tim should have said, "yes, that was an outrageous, wicked sin" (seven words would have sufficed!) and gone on to do his usual blasting of Catholic sins in the Middle Ages (that I have never objected to; only when he applies double standards, as presently). What I wrote about is not objectionable at all, in intellectual and ethical reality. Tim just doesn't like these things being brought up because it is about his "folks" and goes against his agenda of what he selectively produces out of history for his readers. I provide both "sides." That's why Tim's words (all of them) are in this paper, whereas he paraphrases and distorts my arguments in his paper, never quoting my actual words even once.

It's an indisputable fact, especially in England, that the monasteries served as a vast network of social support for the peasants. This was all destroyed in the space of a year or less, and nothing replaced it. That's not just my little old opinion: it is historiographical consensus. It was a similar situation in Germany, which is a major reason why the Peasants' War took place. Once the bishops were replaced by the greedy princes (that Melanchthon so despised), the peasants were far worse off than before. This is part of the huge wickedness of the theft on a grand scale. The lives of many thousands of people were made a lot more miserable than before.

The problems and widespread discontent with the corrupt feudal lords masquerading as bishops and misusing the power of the Church for ill-gotten gain and other forms of oppression formed a substantial part of the cultural and spiritual backdrop to the Reformation . . .

So let's replace these evil bishops with the pure and saintly Henry VIII and selfless German princes? That wasn't the will of the English people, since the vast majority of them remained Catholic (even in 1558 when Elizabeth continued the revolution, even deepening it). Melanchthon realized the huge mistake of fleeing to princes rather than retaining the episcopacy. He regretted it to the end of his life.

and are further justly satirized in the staunch Catholic Erasmus’ magnificent works In Praise of Folly and Julius Excluded From Heaven (the latter of which is summarized, with delightful quotations, in a post on this site under that title).

Erasmus, huh? I cited him in my paper, right at the beginning:

I greatly wonder, my dear Jonas, what god has stirred up the heart of Luther, in so far as he assails with such license of pen the Roman pontiff, all the universities, philosophy, and the mendicant orders . . .

Perhaps there were some who out of honest zeal favored calling the orders and princes of the Church to better things. But I do not know if they are those who under this pretext covet the wealth of the churchmen. I judge nothing to be more wicked and destructive of public tranquility than this . . . This certainly is a fine turn of affairs, if property is wickedly taken away from priests so that soldiers may make use of it in worse fashion; and the latter squander their own wealth, and sometimes that of others, so that no one benefits.

(in Christian Humanism and the Reformation, [selections from Erasmus], edited and translated by John C. Olin, New York: Harper & Row, 1965, 152, 157-159, 161-163; Letter to Jodocus Jonas, from Louvain, May 10, 1521)

Erasmus also wrote:

It is part of my unhappy fate, that my old age has fallen on these evil times when quarrels and riots prevail everywhere. . . .

This new gospel is producing a new set of men so impudent, hypocritical, and abusive, such liars and sycophants, who agree neither with one another nor with anybody else, so universally offensive and seditious, such madmen and ranters, and in short so utterly distasteful to me that if I knew of any city in which I should be free from them, I would remove there at once.

(in Philip Schaff, The History of the Christian Church, Volume VII: History of Modern Christianity, Chapter IV, section 71, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910)

Luther responded to Erasmus with his usual detached rationality and accuracy:

Erasmus of Rotterdam is the vilest miscreant that ever disgraced the earth . . . He is a very Caiaphas.

(Table-Talk, translated by William Hazlitt, Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society: n.d., #667, 350-351)

Shame upon thee, accursed wretch! . . . Whenever I pray, I pray a curse upon Erasmus.

(Ibid., #668, 351)

Erasmus was poisoned at Rome and at Venice with epicurean doctrines. He extols the Arians more highly than the Papists . . . he died like an epicurean, without any one comfort of God.

(Ibid., #675, 355)

This I do leave behind me as my will and testament . . . I hold Erasmus of Rotterdam to be Christ's most bitter enemy . . . the enemy to true religion, the open adversary of Christ, the complete and faithful picture and image of Epicurus and of Lucian.

(Ibid., #676, 355)

Erasmus writes nothing in which he does not show the impotence of his mind or rather the pains of the wounds he has received. I despise him, nor shall I honor the fellow by arguing with him any more . . . In future I shall only refer to him as some alien, rather condemning than refuting his ideas. He is a light-minded man, mocking all religion as his dear Lucian does, and serious about nothing but calumny and slander.

(Letter to Montanus About Erasmus, May 28, 1529; from Preserved Smith, Letters of Martin Luther, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1911, 211)

Now, then, we have an absurd scenario, where Tim loves to cite Erasmus when he talks about Catholic corruptions and vices, but not when he turns his critique on Luther and the "Reformation." Why the double standard? What is so difficult about admitting and openly acknowledging (and detesting) Protestant sin? We have no problem about admitting ours. This is a distressingly common hypocrisy in Protestant polemics that I will expose until the day I die.

Friends, the protest against papal worldliness and confusion of spiritual and temporal powers runs too deep in Medieval history to be written off as an exaggerated product of “rebels” and “heretics” at the time of the Reformation.

That's why no Catholic I know, who knows anything about history, denies it. Why does Tim have to keep pretending that we are doing this? I find it very curious.

Unfortunately, Catholic apologists as a general rule prefer to excuse the Church’s gross abuses of its authority and shift the blame for historical problems in Christendom onto the parties that opposed the papacy.

Here we go again. Now, at first, I was tempted to thoroughly document the scores of times I have freely acknowledged Catholic historical sin. I even have an entire web page about it, for heaven's sake. Tim won't give me that credit. But one will suffice, because I have used it so many times. It is a citation from Karl Adam, a German Catholic often favorably cited by Protestants. Most recently, I utilized it in one of a series of ongoing dialogues with two Lutheran (LCMS) pastors. Note first my own words:

First of all, I'm the very last person who would ever deny that the Catholic Church needed to be reformed in the 16th century. It needs to be reformed at all times. I would say, in agreement with you, that not only any "responsible" Catholic should think that, but indeed, any conscious or sane Catholic whatsoever. In fact, I've never met any Catholic who thinks and knows history at all, who would deny this. That isn't the issue at all. No one disagrees with it. Rather, the real issue, as a Catholic sees it, is what should have been done to reform the tragic corruptions and nonsense and nominalism that were going on at the time.

We strongly agree with you that reform was necessary. But we would deny that a split (schism) or what is known as the "Reformation" was necessary. That is where the difference lies, rather than the common Protestant caricature of one side acknowledging problems and doing something about it and the other denying the problem and putting their collective heads in the sand. The Catholic Church had its own reform shortly afterwards, in the form of the Council of Trent.

Nor have I ever met an informed Catholic who would deny that the Catholic Church and Catholics shared a great deal of blame in the events of that time. The Catholic Church is often making "official" statements of regret and apology. To my knowledge, I don't recall seeing similar "official" pronouncements from Lutherans (if there are some, I'd love to be directed to them). There are some in the ongoing ecumenical dialogues, but LCMS rejects those from the outset. You may personally be interested in ecumenism (good for you), but your denomination has opposed the"official" Lutheran-Catholic dialogues. . . .

Nor is it some new thing for me to admit that Catholics bore a large share of the blame (if not the lion's share). I agree with this. You cite Catholic theologian Karl Adam later in your reply. I'm well familiar with him, having read his book, The Spirit of Catholicism in 1990 (I recommend it very highly as an introduction to Catholic thought). I cited him in a paper I wrote in 1991 about Martin Luther and the Protestant Revolt, that eventually became part of the first draft of my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.

The same excerpt was posted on my website in early 1997 and has remained in my online set of apologetic papers ever since. So this is nothing new. It's been part of my apologetic writing for almost a generation. I'm not just pulling it out of a hat now. I wholeheartedly agree with the following remarks of Karl Adam, that I cite verbatim from my 1991 paper:

Then I cited Karl Adam:

Catholics today (more so than formerly) freely admit that the Church in Luther's time sorely needed reforming. The eminent German Catholic theologian Karl Adam, in his book The Roots of the Reformation (translated by Cecily Hastings, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951 [portion of One and Holy, 1948] ), devotes nearly a third of its space to "weakness in the Church." He states that "the Renaissance Popes seem to have carried out in their own lives that cult of idolatrous humanism, demonic ambition and unrestrained sensuality" (p. 14). He quotes the words of Pope Adrian VI (1522-23), who in turn cited St. Bernard: "Vice has grown so much a matter of course that those who are stained with it are no longer aware of the stink of sin" (p. 20). He is quite frank and descriptive of other abuses:

The majority of this clerical proletariat had neither the intellectual nor the moral capacity to so much as guess the profundity of the questions raised by Luther . . . In this waste of clerical corruption it was impossible for the Spirit of our Lord to penetrate into the people . . .

There was no sacramental impulse towards an interiorizing and deepening of religion. So the attention of the faithful was directed towards externals . . . This hideous simoniacal abuse of indulgences corrupted true piety . . . indulgences were perverted to a blasphemous haggling with God. Night fell on the German Church . . . (pp. 22-26)

He lamented the loss of the Luther that might have been:

Had Martin Luther then arisen with his marvelous gifts of mind and heart, his warm penetration of the essence of Christianity, his passionate defiance or all unholiness and ungodliness, the elemental fury of his religious experience, his surging, soul-shattering power of speech, and not least that heroism in the face of death . . .- had he brought all these magnificent qualities to the removal of the abuses of the time . . . had he remained a faithful member of his Church, humble and simple, sincere and pure, then indeed we should today be his grateful debters. He would be forever our great Reformer . . . comparable to Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi. He would have been the greatest saint of the German people . . .

But -- and here lies the tragedy of the Reformation . . .- he let the warring spirits drive him to overthrow not merely the abuses in the Church, but the Church Herself . . . what St. Augustine calls the greatest sin . . . he set up altar against altar and tore in pieces the one Body of Christ. (pp. 27-28)

Adam then gives his opinion of the origin of Luther's revolt:

The longer the strife continued . . . the confusion in his eyes between the abuses in the Church and the essence of the Church increased; his belief in himself and his mission deepened . . . The abuses . . . certainly unleashed Luther upon the path of revolution, and justified him in the eyes of the masses and in his own judgment. But they were not the actual ground, the decisive reason for Luther's falling away from the doctrine of the Church . . .:

[Luther]: I would have little against the Papists if they taught true doctrine. Their evil life would do no great harm.

It was not ecclesiastical abuses that made him the opponent of the Catholic Church, but the conviction that she was teaching falsely. And this conviction dates from long before the fatal 17th October, 1517. (pp. 34-35)

As a general rule, Catholic apologists don’t seem to care all that much about the classical Christian political tradition, which on balance teaches that those in authority must be accountable on this earth and in this life, not merely later when they stand before God Himself.

Right. Why don't you document your stereotypical accusation, Tim? If you want to make this claim, then show us who claimed this, in context. Or do you just pull it out of a hat? My paper was massively documented. It had hardly any of my own words at all.

When one takes a good, long, sober-minded look at the classical Christian political tradition, one finds that it is basically small cliques of power-seekers, small, selfish factions within the larger body, which claim that rulers need not be accountable to anyone on earth. Such cliques and factions have very often been found in the ranks of papalists, and unfortunately they have more often than not carried the day in important conflicts within Christendom.

The inevitable "papalist" rhetoric from Tim ("papalist" in his opinion meaning merely one who believes in papal infallibility) . . . Of course he cannot prove that I subscribe to this ludicrous notion that the pope is not accountable to anyone on earth, because if he took 30 seconds to scroll around a bit, he would find at least one paper that proves the contrary. That paper is called "Laymen Advising and Rebuking Popes." Here is an excerpt:

Pope John XXII was soundly and successfully rebuked by the masses when he temporarily espoused belief in a false doctrine. St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Francis of Assisi rebuked popes, and their advice was respected and heeded (St. Francis, however, was ordained as a deacon - not as a priest -, so technically he was not a layman). These saints were the most revered Catholics of their time (one might think of Mother Teresa in our time).

I'm sure there were also many instances of morally inferior popes (e.g., during the Renaissance) being soundly rebuked by holy priests and laymen. This is nothing novel whatsoever in Catholic ecclesiology. No one knows better than Catholics the distinction between the nobility of an office and (too often) the sanctity of the person holding it at any given time. Of course, this has always been the case in the Church and amongst the Old Testament Jews (one need only recall Moses, David, Judas, and St. Peter himself).

So isn't it fascinating that Tim is again parroting and embracing ideas that I accepted and wrote about years ago, as happens quite often? This paper was written in 1997. Let's do a comparison:

Dave Armstrong, 1997: St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Francis of Assisi rebuked popes, and their advice was respected and heeded.

Tim Enloe, 2008: To that I simply re-emphasized the critiques of good, loyal, orthodox Catholics such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Dominic, and St. Francis.

As a general rule, Catholic apologists don’t seem to care all that much about the classical Christian political tradition, which on balance teaches that those in authority must be accountable on this earth.

Right. The facts are quite otherwise. If Tim wants to critique some Catholic apologist, let him do that, but let him also responsibly cite the person in context, and let him respond, and do it on his site where he lobbed the criticism. Instead, he implies that I believe this, as the Catholic apologist he is critiquing, and that Catholic apologists do as a general rule. It's an outright falsehood in my case -- the very opposite of the truth -- , and I have documented that.

As so often, Tim adopts some position that I held many years ago (in this instance, eleven years; back in the previous century and millennium: and that is just when I wrote about it). Then he insinuates that I don't believe what I have, since I converted to Catholicism in 1990, and that he is offering some pearl of insight that I can benefit and learn from, as if he wasn't the one who arrived at this wisdom many years after I did myself. It's a ridiculous state of affairs indeed.

In fact, I used an even stronger word than Tim, in describing dissent from popes. I used the word "rebuked," whereas he uses the milder "critiques".

From Pope Gregory VII’s revolutionary establishment of absolute papal power in the later 11th century to Pope Paul IV’s obstinate absolutism in the mid-16th century, the ranks of papalists have, unfortunately, always been prone to excess, and they can be and ought to be challenged on this point by those who have obtained the classical and Christian intellectual resources to do so.

More caricature and non sequiturs . . . So some people in the past were extreme. Big wow. Like we don't know this? What is stupid is the cynical attempt to paint current Catholic apologists with this brush of extreme factions in the Church in 1300 or what not. I can't wait till Tim gets to the actual academic world and starts putting out his pet theses. Then he will be forced to defend them in peer-reviewed journals. Now he can (and usually does) ignore all critiques from lowly lay apologists such as myself, and simply lecture his readers, with no comments allowed. That ain't how academia works! He'll be able to lecture students, but not fellow scholars, without their prerogative to provide a critique. I truly can't wait to see what happens with Tim in that academic environment. I want to see him required to defend his ideas for a change.

It is important for us as Protestants to understand that these factions have always been opposed by substantial voices from within the orthodox catholic tradition itself.

Indeed: folks like (well), me! I wouldn't say I was substantial, but I mention myself because Tim is implying that I would espouse these opinions that he loves to condemn ad nauseum.

The failure to recognize this fact, and the failure to own up to their precious Roman Church’s own role in the production of schisms and heresies is one of the Catholic apologetics community’s most glaring blind spots.

Yes, of course. I guess that is why I have been citing that observation from Karl Adam above for over 17 years, and why I wrote the paper about rebuking popes in 1997. Maybe Tim will get it now, but I have little hope, because I've pointed these facts out to him many times before. We're cordial with each other now (which I'm very happy about) but he continues to misrepresent me and engage in the same old same old tired rhetoric where I and "Catholic apologists" are concerned: almost invariably without documentation, too, which makes it doubly objectionable (and super-easy to refute).

I can function as a little sneak preview of the criticism he will receive from fellow historians, when he is among their number. If he won't defend his views now, then he will have to learn the hard way later on. It's all part of the academic life. He had best get used to it sooner rather than later.

We can and should press militant Catholic apologists to soberly consider the tie between accountability and responsibility. And, significantly, we must do this in the name of fidelity to the Tradition. If the Catholic apologist won’t listen to Plato and Aristotle and Polybius and Cicero, pray they’ll listen to St. Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Francis, and St. Dominic.

Exactly; as I stressed in 1997 . . . so who are these "apologists" Tim wishes to "press"? Why doesn't he name some names and document where they stated these things that he despises? I for one would love to see it. If he thinks he has exposed me in this he has obviously failed miserably, and is dead wrong: asserting the exact opposite of the truth in my case.

If, on the other hand, he wants to claim now that he didn't have me in mind when making these statements, then he ought to say so in his paper, because when a paper is directed towards one person, and no other in his category (apologists) is named, it is not unreasonable for the reader to conclude that the more general remarks are probably intended (at least in part) for the named recipient, as one of the class being critiqued. I've noted this as an ethical shortcoming time and again, but Tim keeps doing it. Why? Does he actually think he could get away with such undocumented polemics when he is an actual historian?

Don’t be intimidated by the rhetoric of Reformation mortal sins, especially when it downplays or even ignores papal mortal sins.

Apparently Tim thinks folks ought not be intimidated at all by any recounting of early Protestant sins and scandals. One should never hear of that. It is a naughty no-no. It goes against the plan and the myth and the talking points. Only Catholic sins can be talked about: either solely, or always having to be mentioned whenever some outrageous controversialist like myself dares to assert the obvious: that the early Protestants were not pure as the driven snow.

Catholic apologists are good at pointing their finger at others in excoriation, but they’re not so good at noticing the three fingers that are in that very action pointing excoriatingly back at them.

Exactly. I guess that is why I have a page about Catholic Scandals?

Friends, stick to the Tradition on this matter. It’s overwhelmingly on our side, not theirs. It’s not just comic book heroes who advocate the lesson, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

What Catholic tradition justifies theft, forbidding the Mass, destroying statues and stained glass (iconoclasm), and banishment (or hanging, drawing, and quartering) of Catholics? I'd like to see that. Perhaps Tim the budding historian can direct me to some resources along those lines. I confess that I am utterly ignorant about where they might be found.

But the Catholic might continue to protest, perhaps along the lines of “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Since that is undeniable ethical truth, we would do so.

Perhaps he might say that the papacy and its agents were indeed themselves guilty of mortal sin of stealing, but the way to handle this papal sin was not to commit an equal and opposite theft.

As I have done in this paper . . .

This would at least be a respectable approach, . . .

Thanks, Tim! I guess that is the closest I get to a compliment from my good friend.

. . . for it would show some sense of chastened humility and responsibility on the part of the Catholic.

I'm deeply touched . . .

I would like to point out that such a Catholic, properly chastened, could then view the Reformers and the secular kings of the 16th century who used the idea of reform to take Catholic property as the prophet did the agent of God’s punishment of Israel: “O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger…I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge…” (Isaiah 10:5-6).

That scenario is entirely possible (in a merely hypothetical sense). The only problem is that such agents do not automatically become righteous. They may achieve God's will, but it doesn't follow that they were without sin. God uses them for His plans, just like He uses the devil (in the case of Job, for example). But no one would assert that the devil became righteous simply because He was a pawn in God's plan. Nebuchadnezzar was judged by God, after he was used as his agent of judgment against Israel. The Assyrian invasions involved nations warring against each other. In the "Reformation," however, the Protestants were warring against fellow Christians. That is the sin of schism.

This would involve seeing the Church of that age as a hypocrite under the just judgment of God, which would in turn take a lot of the intended rhetorical force out of Catholic apologetics, but it would tend to facilitate real dialogue, real repentance, and real reconciliation.

The other problem is that this doesn't fit with the actual facts of the matter (as I pointed out in one of my earlier replies), especially in England (but also in Germany). This is desperate special pleading on Tim's part. He can't argue from the opinions of reputable historians, and so he falls back on empty polemics and implausible hypotheticals. The people were, for the most part, perfectly content with the Church and all the social and spiritual benefits of the monasteries.

So it has to be asserted against fact that the corruption was so great and intense that this would qualify as a plausible scenario for God's judgment, with the bloodthirsty tyrant and Clintonian adulterer Henry VIII as God's agent. St. Thomas More and St. Thomas Fisher and St. Edmund Campion and the other hundreds of martyrs who were butchered were the bad guys being judged. Perhaps Tim would like to extend this hypothetical to the Russian Revolution too (the historical event that most resembles the English "Reformation")? The Russian Orthodox Church and the czars were so corrupt that God had to enlist Lenin as His agent to come butcher priests and bishops and steal all the Orthodox churches? Makes about as much sense . . .

It would, again, involve the Catholic in re-wedding responsibility to authority, and it would be far more respectable than trying to defend 16th century pharisees the way that the church leaders of Jeremiah’s day did, only to hear in return:

This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place. Do not trust in deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!” If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever. But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless. “‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”–safe to do all these detestable things? Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the Lord. “‘Go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for my Name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel. While you were doing all these things, declares the Lord, I spoke to you again and again, but you did not listen; I called you, but you did not answer. Therefore, what I did to Shiloh I will now do to the house that bears my Name, the temple you trust in, the place I gave to you and your fathers. I will thrust you from my presence, just as I did all your brothers, the people of Ephraim.’ (Jeremiah 7:3-15)

Nice touch, Tim. I shall now show how this won't fly:

if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place

The monasteries in England were not doing that, we now know, from abundant testimony of historians of all stripes. They were the charitable system of England at the time. The truth is exactly the opposite. Henry VIII didn't give a damn about the fate of the peasants after all these properties were stolen. Cobbett (no Catholic) writes at the greatest length about these things. And you have the chutzpah to apply this prophetic analogy to Catholics, given the record of the Anglicans in butchering at least 1375 innocent people, as I have documented? This is the sort of mentality that caused Luther to chuckle at the executions of More and Fisher, and wish that there were more kings who could murder saints as Henry VIII had done. Even you haven't often charged (if at all) that Catholics were going around outright murdering people, like Butcher Henry and Calculating Cromwell did.

and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm

So now you wish to include in your accusations that Catholics at that time followed other gods? Luther stated as much . . . Israel did do this, which is a major reason why it was judged.

“‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury . . .

The "Reformers" stole thousands of Catholic properties. Henry and Elizabeth and other Protestant kings tortured and murdered well over 1300 pious Catholics. Henry was an adulterer. Luther sanctioned adultery in Philip of Hesse's case, and said polygamy was not forbidden in the Bible. The Protestants watered down the criteria for divorce, and started allowing it, and removed matrimony as a sacrament. Henry VIII had to massively lie about the monasteries in order to seize them. He lied to the leaders of the massive Catholic social uprising, known as the Pilgrimage of Grace about beneficial promises, and had them all summarily executed. Luther had to massively lie about Catholic teachings and practices, and spread propaganda far and wide (including vulgar woodcuts) in order for his movement to succeed at all.

burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known

Well, Baal-worship is attributed to the Catholic mass in the Lutheran Confessions, which are binding to this day:

Apology of the Augsburg Confession [1531], Article XXIV: The Mass

Carnal men cannot stand it when only the sacrifice of Christ is honored as a propitiation. For they do not understand thew righteousness of faith but give equal honor to other sacrifices and services. A false idea clung to the wicked priests in Judah, and in Israel the worship of Baal continued; yet the church of God was there, condemning wicked services. So in the papal realm the worship of Baal clings -- namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God's command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith.

(The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959, p. 268)

So I guess, Tim, if you want to follow in the Lutheran tradition of 1530 (the date when Melanchthon wrote the above) and assert the same about Catholics of that period, then no on can stop you. But don't expect anyone to think much of your analytical (or analogical) abilities.

Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you?

It is preciously ironic and pathetic that Protestants blow way out of proportion the abuses of indulgences and rant and rave about how this was exploiting poor people, then they turn around and try to justify the theft of thousands of Catholic churches and monasteries and the removal of a vast network of social services for the poor, as either justifiable outright or an instance of judgment analogous to Assyria or Babylonia judging idol-ridden ancient Israel. One decries theft in one instance and then defends and rationalizes a theft a hundred or a thousand times greater magnitude than the first sin.

As we can see, every sin that is attributed to ancient Israel in this judgment prophecy is far more true of the "Reformers" than of the Catholic Church.

Please note that in using these Scriptures this way against certain Catholic claims, I am not taking the usual Protestant line of saying that the corruption of the Church in the 16th century means that the Church was not really the Church, but just a pretender.

Good, but it doesn't mean that the analogy flies. It doesn't. It's a dumb analogy: one that is really no analogy at all. In fact, this qualification makes it all the more inapplicable, because the worship of Baal in particular could never be applied to a Christian church. Yet Melanchthon and Luther do that, and you use this analogy in a way that, in effect, argues the same.

I am no friend of arguments that make True Religion ever the province of persecuted, marginal groups who alone maintain the True Light. In using the above Scriptures, I am merely pointing out how God Himself has historically dealt with sinful peoples whom He calls His own despite their sins - and, often, even despite their apostasies. This is simply the biblical way of talking about sin and error in the Church, and it transcends Catholic and Protestant polemics.

And this biblical way of talking does not apply to the Catholic Church in these particular times and places: Germany and England in the 16th century. If the analogy applied at all, it would be to people like Henry VIII and the German princes.

On the other hand, the Catholic apologist could dispense with negatively analyzing the Reformers entirely and focus his efforts on trying to untangle the mess of the confusion of secular and spiritual powers which had been developing in the Church since the 11th century.

I'd be more than happy to do so; in fact, absolutely delighted, the moment that Protestants stop negatively analyzing the historic Catholic Church and misrepresenting our theology. As I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, I don't expect that I will be able to remove my treatments of historic Protestant sins and shortcomings in the near future. But I would dearly love to be able to do so. Goose and gander. I won't accept a double standard that does only one but ignores the other. If we all want to get beyond the past, then let's do it together, not one-sided only.

The purpose here would be to determine which of the numerous properties owned by the Church at the time of the so-called “theft” in the 16th century were actually forced restorals of properties initially acquired under false pretenses or misuse of Church power (=stolen) by the papacy and its agents.

You go ahead and figure that out, Tim. You're the budding historian. That's your hypothesis, so go flesh it out and defend it. I ain't gonna do all of your work for you. I am excoriating what you call the "so-called 'theft'". You're so far outside of reality on this that you can't even call it what it was. You have to do your usual thing of putting things in quotes that you disagree with (as if they aren't what they are). The very first thing that occurs in any rationalization of sin is a redefining of terms or use of new ones. We saw that in the abortion debate, in Nazi Germany, in the English "Reformation" and Russian Revolution. And now you give us a sterling example to add to the collection.

A concern for repentant restitution, not reckless rhetoric, would be the Catholic’s primary concern here. Of course, this too would be very inconvenient for the cause of apologetics as it has come to be distortively practiced in our day, but it would be much truer to the complex realities of the war for the heart and soul of Christendom that was occurring in the 16th century and which we, from the comfort of our air-conditioned studies and our padded chairs can scarcely imagine as we bodilessly swagger out onto the Internet to “defend the Truth.”

Right. I can assure readers, in any event, that I do have a body, that includes two hands and fingers, with which I type out these posts . . . it's very much a bodily exercise, and I have a sore back most of the time to prove it. I do confess to my shame, however, to having a padded chair and air-conditioning. But I haven't stolen my house. I don't live in a stolen convent, like Luther did. I pay for my dwelling every month.

At any rate, Dave Armstrong’s basic approach to the matter of churches and other properties being taken out of the hands of godless feudal lords . . .

So the monks of the English monasteries were all godless? I guess that justifies stealing their properties and ripping out their intestines and hearts while they are still alive, and chopping off their limbs and putting them up on city gates. Makes perfect sense to me. If they are "godless" then anything whatever can be done to them. They essentially become demons to be pitilessly slaughtered.

has a deeper problem - the problem of failure to apply biblical standards of justice and recompense according to deeds.

Absolutely. Henry VIII had no biblical defense (to coin a phrase) at all for what he did.

Classical catholic historians such as the Venerable Bede and William of Malmesbury constantly affirm, following the lead of the Scriptures themselves, that when disaster comes on the Church it’s because God is punishing His people for their sins and departures from His will. They do not excuse the Church and blame others.

I'll guarantee that whatever they said would not be analogous to these outrages committed by the Protestants. If Tim disagrees, let him produce their relevant words, and I will demonstrate this. Tim acts as if Bede would be right in league with Cromwell and Henry, standing there while Fisher and More were beheaded, etc. This is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. Nothing like this had ever happened, since the time of the pagan Viking pillaging, or Genghis Khan or the ancient Roman persecutions. And this had the added hypocrisy of Christians stealing from and slaughtering other Christians.

We must understand that such blameshifting is the activity of factions in the Church, and is no part of a truly catholic mindset.

Who is blameshifting?

We must understand that the issue of wedding responsibility to claims of authority is one area where many Roman Catholics fall drastically short of the historic Christian Tradition, and one area where they need quite a different kind of apology than apologetics is used to giving.

I think Tim's entire effort is a pathetic, indefensible rationalization of sin. He'll do anything except admit that these activities of the early Protestants (those who committed them or sanctioned them, as Luther did) were wicked sins. I thank him at least for a manifest example of how far Protestants will go to excuse and explain away absolutely anything that happened as part of their endlessly glorified and whitewashed "Reformation".

Yet it doesn't cost Protestants anything to admit historical wrongs. They don't have to cease believing what they do in good faith, based on these factors alone. No Catholic is telling Protestants that they must become Catholics simply because Protestantism is guilty of institutionalized sin in the past. And we only have greater respect for those Protestants who freely admit that there were plenty of sins on both sides, rather than continue the pretense that Catholics were supposedly exponentially more sinful than Protestants.

The pretentious double standard is the reason why I write these sorts of papers: NOT as a result of any supposed desire to "bash" Protestants and make them out to be singularly wicked. I say over and over that sinfulness is universally to be found. That's why we Christians believe in original sin: the most obviously demonstrable notion that one can find in the Bible.

Books by Dave Armstrong: Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise

(completed on 17 April 2008; published by Lulu on the same day)

--- To purchase, go to the bottom of the page ---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication (p. 3)

Introduction (p. 5) [available online]

PART ONE: CRITICISM

1. Was Martin Luther a “Revolutionary” Who Had Many Fundamental Disagreements With the Catholic Church? (p. 11)

2. Martin Luther’s Extraordinary (and Arbitrary) Claims Regarding His Own Authority (p. 39)

3. Martin Luther and the Canon of Holy Scripture (p. 47)

4. Luther and Salvation Theology: “Getting to a Gracious God” and the “Snow-Covered Dunghill” (p. 63)

5. Soul Sleep and Luther’s Rejection of Purgatory (p. 105)

6. The Extent of Luther’s Blame Regarding the Tragedy of the Peasants’ Revolt (1525-1526) (p. 117)

7. Martin Luther’s Religious Intolerance and Ironic Espousal of Capital Punishment For Heresy (p. 161)

PART TWO: PRAISE AND AGREEMENT

8. Sacraments: Baptismal Regeneration, Real Presence in the Eucharist, Adoration, Absolution, Confirmation, Anointing (p. 175)

Excerpts available online:

Martin Luther On the Sacrament of Absolution (and Private Confession)

Martin Luther's Opinion of (the Catholic Sacrament of) Confirmation

9. Mary: the Blessed Virgin and Mother of God (p. 207)

10. Other Catholic “Remnants”: Good Works and Sanctification, Authoritative Church Tradition, Crucifixes, Images, Etc. (p. 231)

Excerpts available online:

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

Martin Luther on Crucifixes, Images and Statues of Saints, and the Sign of the Cross

Bibliography of Sources (p. 259)

* * * * *



Back cover


See also:

Review by Fr. Peter Stravinskas, in The Catholic Response (Vol. V, No. 4, pp. 31-32)

My Luther Book Blasted For Being Far Too Kind and Charitable to Luther / Pre-Vatican II Popes' Use of the Description "Separated Brethren"

* * * * *

Purchase Options:

Purchase: paperback or PDF E-book ($3.00)

Sale Offer: one of 16 E-Books (Word + PDF): Only $25

--- offer includes the bestsellers A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, The Catholic Verses, and The One-Minute Apologist, and features 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise, and The Church Fathers Were Catholic

Last revised on 5 August 2009

Introduction to My Book: Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise

1520 second edition of Luther's treatise, An den Christlichenn Adel deutscher Nation: von des Christlichen standes besserung (To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation)

See my info-page for this title.

* * * * *

The question always arises with regard to a work such as this, written from a Catholic perspective: why write about Martin Luther at all? Such an endeavor is viewed in many quarters as “stirring up a hornet’s nest” or as an unnecessary provoking of undesirable tension between Christians. Life is tough enough without further quarreling, we are told. We are supposed to be beyond all that, seeing that this is an “enlightened” age of tolerance and ecumenism.

My question in return is: “why are we required to pit legitimate ecumenism and the honorable quest for Christian unity against honest, critical analysis of competing theological claims and historical inquiry?” I’m a thoroughly ecumenical Christian, and readers may rest assured that I have great respect for my Protestant and Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ. Indications of this on my blog (see the front pages of this book) are innumerable. Thus I need not “prove” my “ecumenical good faith”.

That said, I fail to see how it is improper -- or in any way unbiblical -- to contend for one’s own Christian position, or to engage in apologetics (my own vocation). The effort need not be acrimonious at all. It can be done with the utmost cordiality. I try very hard to do so -- not that I always succeed.

In fact, Martin Luther himself – it seems to me -- would not frown upon a vigorous advocacy of a theological position (since he often did that). He certainly disagreed strongly with other viewpoints if he felt they were in error, and was not all that inclined to accept criticism of himself or his own opinions, but I doubt that he would ever say that a person shouldn’t state their disagreement or principled theological positions at all, for fear of being accused of creating yet more division amongst Christians.

That is a peculiarly modern perspective. And it derives, in my opinion, mostly from the fact that people (as a general trend of the last two hundred years or so) have a less robust Christian faith, compared to their theological ancestors. Therefore, they have less motivation to contend for the relatively few things they continue to strongly believe. In other words, the fewer theological tenets one accepts, the more they tend to make the abstract of “tolerance” the highest goal, rather than the concrete goal of pursuit of truth. This can frequently be observed today.

Indeed, all of the original Protestant leaders would have strictly opposed such a mentality. They contended for their distinctive viewpoints with great enthusiasm and a felt sense of vision. It was rare in the 16th century to hear of the current fashionable notions of “secondary doctrines”: where all parties concede that they cannot be resolved one way or the other (so that they should be ignored or consigned to relative irrelevance).

The subject matter and positions taken in this book will, no doubt, be offensive to some or even many Protestant readers. It is difficult to write about such a delicate topic: one that elicits deep feelings of allegiance. But this work is not meant to be an “attack” on Martin Luther. Apologetics isn’t political campaigning (an apt analogy in this presidential election year in America). It is, rather, a very straightforward examination of Martin Luther: the founder of Protestantism, with a concentration on massive citation of his own words.

Some “controversy,” although painful at times, is necessary and useful for the purpose of determining the relative merits of competing truth claims. I think it is self-evident that Martin Luther, as the founder of an important and influential movement within Christianity, should be held up to the utmost scrutiny, given the fact that so many basic Protestant assumptions originate (largely or solely) from him. This work is, accordingly, an analysis of the roots of present-day Protestant theology.

It is foolish for any Protestant (some of whom reject even the appellation “Protestant”) to deny the inescapable link between current-day denominational Protestantism (even beyond Lutheranism) and Martin Luther. To do so is to be uninformed about a crucial element in Protestant thought: its own root presuppositions. Any Christian body claiming to be a (or the) legitimate manifestation of historical Christianity must have a coherent story to tell. This necessarily involves historical study and some kind of theological interpretation of the history of one’s own group.

I strongly contend that no Protestant can deny an organic relationship to Martin Luther, any more than a Catholic can disavow all ties to the historic papacy, the Crusades and Inquisition, etc. Both sides must have the courage to fairly acknowledge their own shortcomings and the other side’s positive, godly attributes. We’re all products of the past.

The views set forth here are certainly one-sided, and purposely so, in order to form a conscious counter-argument to the accepted Protestant “mythology,” so to speak, of Martin Luther. His many commendable qualities are well covered in any Protestant biography (and some can be rightly classified as virtual “hagiographies”).

The objective Christian student of Church history needs to consult works written from a critical Catholic perspective as well, in order to foster a closer examination and perhaps a partial reappraisal of Luther. The full, multi-faceted, complex truth concerning important historical figures is invariably more fascinating than the usual myths that circulate about. I aim to present Luther as he was: no more, no less: as fairly as I can, but “warts and all,” too.

Lastly, the reader may wonder (in all fairness) about my own personal opinion (as a committed orthodox Catholic, and Catholic apologist) of Martin Luther. I’m happy to comply with such a desire. I disagree with the man’s theology (that is, where he departs from Catholic orthodoxy) and some of the ways in which he went about things. But I do not regard Luther (like many Catholic biographers and critics throughout history) as an essentially “evil” or “bad” man. I don’t deny his good intentions and sincerity at all (though I often question his wisdom and foresight, as will be evident).

I actually admire Martin Luther in many ways. I love his passion and boldness and bravery in standing up for what he believed. I always admire people who do that, unless the stand they take is unquestionably evil. One can respect such a person without necessarily agreeing with the specific cause or belief that he or she espouses. One can be wrong for the right reasons, and right for the wrong reasons.

I’ve written extensively about Martin Luther, and maintain perhaps the largest web page on the Internet devoted to Luther and Lutheranism, from a Catholic perspective. It may surprise some to learn that among these many papers (written over the past seventeen years) are about twenty, as of writing, where I defend Luther against myths and bum raps, cite him in agreement, or take a fairly neutral stance towards his opinion.

In one fictional, Plato-inspired dialogue I even portrayed Martin Luther quite positively (and downright affectionately), as a sort of (saved) “wise old man”. I’ve even – on occasion -- received unsolicited letters of commendation from Lutheran pastors for such efforts. These aspects of my research will be utilized in the Part Two “praise” section of this book (which runs 83 pages, or about 34% of all the material -- 245 pages -- from Chapter One to the Bibliography).
I’ve engaged in many cordial dialogues with Lutheran scholars or pastors or informed layman, and enjoyed them very much. I’ve defended Lutheranism as well, against false charges from other Christians (for example, the bogus accusation of semi-Pelagianism, or unfounded criticism from Calvinists).

So this book is not about “Luther-bashing” or attempted “historical revisionism” or any such thing. It is simply a Catholic examination of Martin Luther: critical where I feel I must be so, in light of my own heartfelt theological adherence as a Catholic, but also appreciative of the several areas where I can wholeheartedly agree with Luther, and rejoice in those instances where he is an eloquent proponent of a position that Catholics also hold.

9 Out of 10 Free Throws: Twice!!

Free throw, or foul shot.

Now, for a little typically male athletic bragging. Today was the first time this spring I got out to the backyard to shoot some hoops. My 6'1" 14 yo (who beats me about two out of three in one-on-one now) and 11 yo who is not bad himself, have been out there for weeks. I can hear the bouncing balls from my library / office upstairs in our house.

So I go out there and we do the ten foul shots routine. I was terrible at first. I got 4-for-10, then 3-for-10. I even got as low as 2-for-10 (BOO!), which really stinks. I had no rhythm in my shots or the right spin, or enough arc. My 14 yo son got 7-for-10. Even my younger boy got 5 out of ten. But I took it all in stride. I knew I had to warm up, and I knew I wasn't that bad overall. It was only my first time this year.

The older boy (I know him well and he has my intense competitive spirit) started getting smug and thinking it would be a slam dunk beating me this year one-on-one. But wait! The old man (50 in July) was just getting warmed-up! Eventually I got my shooting rhythm (it can't be held down forever!) and I made 9-for-10. This was higher than my son had ever done. His highest ever was 8. So that made for more than a little friendly teasing. Then a little later I did it again. So I did twice in my first day out playing, what he had never done. Later I went to play chess with my younger son (he won, because he is a whiz at chess), and the other son kept shooting to try to match me. He eventually sunk 9, but then, of course, I could still playfully "brag" about having done it twice today. Gotta love it!

Moreover, I have the all-time "Armstrong back yard" record for free throws. I made 10-for-10 almost exactly four years ago (as I wrote about). The 14 yo, who was ten and about five feet tall in those days, was already making 7-for-10 even then. In October 2006, I kicked a 30 yard field goal (punt style) in regular gym shoes. That was a thrill too (never having done that much).

For those who don't follow basketball much, 90% free throw shooting is about as good as it gets. The NBA leader for 2007-2008 (with just a game or two left), Peja Stojakovic, shot 92.6% (126 for 136). Chauncey Billups of my beloved Detroit Pistons was second (91.7%), but with many more attempts (399 for 435). So for those two stretches of time and 20 shots, I made 18 and was at 90%: the same distance from the basket and the same height of the basket: just as in the NBA.

That's pretty rewarding stuff for a fun-loving competitive jock like me, trying to hang on to "youth" as I approach the dreaded half-century mark. This will be a fun sports year, with backyard basketball, and an informal pick-up softball team I'll be on every two weeks. I'm still pretty good at baseball (which has always been my favorite sport). I slaughter my big son in strikeout (a couple years ago it was, like, 33 to 3 in just a few innings), but he has become dominant in one-on-one basketball (he's a tremendous defender, complete with many blocked shots), so it is a big challenge to me to try to beat him. I have to shoot well and defend pretty good too or there is no chance at all. I'm just glad I can still play after all these years and provide some decent competition. It's a great father-son activity that will provide lots of good memories for years to come.

Now, no doubt, I'll be out there in the next few weeks trying to get to 10-for-10 again . . . and you'll know if I do!

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

From Chapter Ten of my book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise
(completed last night)

* * * * *

Luther is often greatly misunderstood on this point, with his soteriological doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) often being criticized by those who don’t properly comprehend its fine points, as somehow recommending that good works in the Christian life are worthless and thus, not to be urged. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Generally speaking, when studying statements from Martin Luther, it is always of the utmost importance to:

1) Look at the historical context (if at all possible).

2) Determine the purpose of any given writing.

3) Understand (if able to do so, through various scholarly resources) his overall teaching on the subject at hand.

4) Keep in mind that Luther often utilized extreme sarcasm and hyperbole: sometimes deliberately expressing ideas (in jest) that he didn't actually believe; toying with adversaries, etc. For example, Table-Talk is “notorious” for this.

5) If a “controversial” citation is given in isolation, with no reference to a primary work where context can be consulted, it should be ignored as (standing by itself) a confusing or even (in the way it is wrongly interpreted) a deceiving “half-truth.”

Accordingly, noted historian Philip Schaff explains:

Luther’s words especially must not be weighed too nicely, else any and every thing can be proved by him, and the most irreconcilable contradictions shown in his writings. We must always judge him according to the moment in which, and that against which, he spoke, and duly remember also his bluntness and his stormy, warlike nature.

(The Life and Labours of St. Augustine, Oxford University: 1854, 94)

We mustn’t unfairly approach those who differ from us theologically. There is more than enough actual error in Luther’s teaching, from a Catholic perspective, without having to make up additional errors and distort and twist his views by cynically selective citations taken out of context (as happens in some Catholic circles, sadly, all too often).

Our duty as Christians is to be truthful about the views of those we disagree with. It’s not optional. Bearing false witness violates one of the Ten Commandments. If we fail to do this, it only reflects badly on us, not the ones whose true opinions we caricature and distort.

Luther’s main point on this particular score was that works do not save us (and this is perfectly harmonious with Catholic teaching). It doesn’t follow, however, that Luther would deny the necessity of works in the Christian life. He urges those, as part of sanctification, which he formally separates from justification (in a way that Catholics do not). So, though he denies the Catholic notion of merit (which, I would contend, he caricatures and doesn’t properly comprehend), he doesn’t deny (not in the slightest) a place for good works.

The opposite impression occurs due to many statements of Luther that seem to decry good works. But Luther is simply emphasizing that works are not sufficient for salvation. Grace and faith are what save. This distinction is made clear, in the following comments of Luther, all from one work:

[T]he soul . . . is justified by faith alone and not any works . . . This faith cannot exist in connection with works . . .

[S]ince faith alone justifies, it is clear that the inner man cannot be justified, freed, or saved by any outer work or action at all, and that these works, whatever their character, have nothing to do with this inner man.

[F]aith alone justifies and offers us such a treasure of great benefits without works . . . faith alone, without works, justifies, frees, and saves . . .

It is clear, then, that a Christian has all he needs in faith and needs no work to justify him . . .

This obedience, however, is not rendered by works, but by faith alone.

[H]e needs no works to make him righteous and save him, since faith alone abundantly confers all these things.

In doing these works, however, we must not think that a man is justified before God by them, for faith, which alone is righteousness before God, cannot endure that erroneous opinion.

(The Freedom of a Christian, 1520, in Three Treatises, 280-282, 284-285, 291, 295)

I’ve taken great pains in past books to stress this, so that I would not be misunderstood in my critiques of Protestant theology, nor mislead my readers at all:

Although classic “Reformational” Protestantism most certainly doesn't deny the importance of good works in the Christian life, it regards them as manifestations or results of the necessary imputed justification, rather than as necessities in their own right. . . .

Simply put, both sides agree that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation and that we are clearly commanded by God to do good works . . . each side often thinks that the other denies one of these principles. In fact, however, at the level of creeds, catechisms, confessions, and councils, both sides completely concur on these two maxims. The split comes over the precise nature of the relationship of faith and works to each other and to justification and salvation. We must not minimize theological divisions, nor should we exaggerate them. The first approach flows from the duty of honesty; the second from the demands of charity and understanding among Christians in the Body of Christ.

(A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2003, 28-29, 31)

But these two clashing approaches to justification have a substantial meeting point: both accept the notion of sola gratia, or salvation by grace alone (over against the heresy of Pelagianism, which holds that man can be saved by works or his own self-generated effort). Both also believe that good works are necessary in the Christian life.

Catholics believe that faith and works are more closely tied together, and related to justification itself. Works can follow only by God’s grace, and do not cause salvation, but they must be present, because (per James), “faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:26).

In large part, the Protestant-Catholic dispute is over the distinction between justification (that is, salvation) and sanctification (holiness). Protestants believe that the latter has nothing whatsoever to do with justification (which is imputed to the believer or declared by God), yet that it should follow from it. Catholics think they are closely related. The practical result is arguably the same in either system. Classical Protestantism will not accept a person as “saved” if that person shows no fruit of good works in his life. They will deny that he ever was saved if he habitually engages in serious sin. Both Luther and Calvin taught this. Luther wrote (contrary to much Evangelical talk today):

We must therefore certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.

(in Althaus, 246)

Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith.

(Althaus, ibid., 246; also LW, 34, 111; cf. 34, 161)

(The Catholic Verses, Sophia Institute Press, 2004, 64-65)

Accordingly, we observe Luther constantly exhorting Christians to do good works, always wrought from the faith that is a gift from God, in the Holy Spirit; part and parcel of sanctification:

[A] Christian life is but a daily baptism, which, once entered upon, requires us incessantly to fulfill its conditions. Without ceasing we must purge out what is of the old Adam, so that what belongs to the new man may come forth. But what is the old man? Inherited from Adam, he is passionate, hateful, envious, unchaste, miserly, lazy, conceited and, last but not least, unbelieving; thoroughly corrupt, he offers no lodgment to what is good. Now, when we enter Christ’s kingdom, such corruption should daily decrease and we should become more gentle, more patient, more meek, and ever break away more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy and vainglory. . . .

[W]hen we become Christians, the old man daily grows weaker, until at length he is altogether subdued. This is, in the true sense, to plunge into baptism and daily to arise again. . . .

[E]very day should witness the war against the old man and the growth of the new. For, if we wish to be Christians, we must practice the things that make for Christianity.

(Large Catechism, 1529, sections 237-238, 241 [Baptism chapter], pp. 169, 171)

Secondly, notice how great, good, and holy a work is here assigned children, which is, alas! utterly neglected and disregarded, and no one perceives that God has commanded it, or that it is a holy, divine Word and doctrine. For if it had been regarded as such, every one could have inferred that they must be holy men who live according to these words. Thus there would have been no need of inventing monasticism nor spiritual orders, but every child would have abided by this commandment, and could have directed his conscience to God and said: “If I am to do good and holy works, I know of none better than to render all honor and obedience to my parents, because God has Himself commanded it. For what God commands must be much and far nobler than everything that we may devise ourselves; and since there is no higher or better teacher to be found than God, there can be no better doctrine, indeed, than He gives forth. Now, He teaches fully what we should do if we wish to perform truly good works; and by commanding them, He shows that they please Him. If, then, it is God who commands this, and who knows not how to appoint anything better, I will never improve upon it.”

(Large Catechism, 1529 [Bente-Dau translation], The Fourth Commandment, sections 112-113)

Let us, therefore, learn at last, for God’s sake, that, placing all other things out of sight, our youths look first to this commandment, if they wish to serve God with truly good works, that they do what is pleasing to their fathers and mothers, or to those to whom they may be subject in their stead. For every child that knows and does this has, in the first place, this great consolation in his heart, that he can joyfully say and boast (in spite of and against all who are occupied with works of their own choice): “Behold, this work is well pleasing to my God in heaven, that I know for certain.”

(Ibid., section 115)

If this truth, then, could be impressed upon the poor people, a servant-girl would leap and praise and thank God; and with her tidy work for which she receives support and wages she would acquire such a treasure as all that are esteemed the greatest saints have not obtained. . . . How can you lead a more blessed or holier life as far as your works are concerned? For in the sight of God faith is what really renders a person holy, and alone serves Him, but the works are for the service of man.

(Ibid., sections 145-147)

If we would ever suffer ourselves to be persuaded that such works are pleasing to God and have so rich a reward, we would be established in altogether abundant possessions and have what our heart desires.

(Ibid., section 152)

Here we have again the Word of God whereby He would encourage and urge us to true noble and sublime works, as gentleness, patience, and, in short, love and kindness to our enemies, . . . This we ought to practise and inculcate, and we would have our hands full doing good works.

(Ibid., The Fifth Commandment, sections 195-196)

Let me now say in conclusion that this commandment demands not only that every one live chastely in thought, word, and deed in his condition, that is, especially in the estate of matrimony, but also that every one love and esteem the spouse given him by God. For where conjugal chastity is to be maintained, man and wife must by all means live together in love and harmony, that one may cherish the other from the heart and with entire fidelity. For that is one of the principal points which enkindle love and desire of chastity, so that, where this is found, chastity will follow as a matter of course without any command. Therefore also St. Paul so diligently exhorts husband and wife to love and honor one another. Here you have again a precious, yea, many and great good works, of which you can joyfully boast, . . .

(Ibid., The Sixth Commandment, sections 219-221)

Whoever now seeks and desires good works will find here more than enough such as are heartily acceptable and pleasing to God, and in addition are favored and crowned with excellent blessings, that we are to be richly compensated for all that we do for our neighbor’s good and from friendship; . . .

(Ibid., The Seventh Commandment, section 252)

There are comprehended therefore in this commandment quite a multitude of good works which please God most highly, and bring abundant good and blessing, . . .

(Ibid., The Eighth Commandment, section 290)

[H]ow richly He will reward, bless, and do all good to those who hold them in high esteem, and gladly do and live according to them. Thus He demands that all our works proceed from a heart which fears and regards God alone, and from such fear avoids everything that is contrary to His will, lest it should move Him to wrath; and, on the other hand, also trusts in Him alone and from love to Him does all He wishes, because he speaks to us as friendly as a father, and offers us all grace and every good.

(Ibid., Conclusion of the Ten Commandments, section 323)

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

This article (as I have said) I cannot relate better than to Sanctification, that through the same the Holy Ghost, with His office, is declared and depicted, namely, that He makes holy.

(Ibid., The Apostles' Creed, Article III, sections 34-35)

But the Spirit of God alone is called Holy Ghost, that is, He who has sanctified and still sanctifies us. For as the Father is called Creator, the Son Redeemer, so the Holy Ghost, from His work, must be called Sanctifier, or One that makes holy. But how is such sanctifying done? Answer: Just as the Son obtains dominion, whereby He wins us, through His birth, death, resurrection, etc., so also the Holy Ghost effects our sanctification by the following parts, namely, by the communion of saints or the Christian Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting; that is, He first leads us into His holy congregation, and places us in the bosom of the Church, whereby He preaches to us and brings us to Christ.

(Ibid., sections 36-37)

Thus, until the last day, the Holy Ghost abides with the holy congregation or Christendom, by means of which He fetches us to Christ and which He employs to teach and preach to us the Word, whereby He works and promotes sanctification, causing it [this community] daily to grow and become strong in the faith and its fruits which He produces.

We further believe that in this Christian Church we have forgiveness of sin, which is wrought through the holy Sacraments and Absolution, moreover, through all manner of consolatory promises of the entire Gospel. Therefore, whatever is to be preached concerning the Sacraments belongs here, and, in short, the whole Gospel and all the offices of Christianity, which also must be preached and taught without ceasing. For although the grace of God is secured through Christ, and sanctification is wrought by the Holy Ghost through the Word of God in the unity of the Christian Church, yet on account of our flesh which we bear about with us we are never without sin.

(Ibid., sections 53-54)

But outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is not, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness [sanctification]. Therefore all who seek and wish to merit holiness [sanctification], not through the Gospel and forgiveness of sin, but by their works, have expelled and severed themselves [from this Church].

Meanwhile, however, while sanctification has begun and is growing daily, . . .

(Ibid., sections 56-57)

What does such baptizing with water signify?

It signifies that the Old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise, who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

(Small Catechism, 1529, 17)

Good works follow such faith, renewal, and forgiveness. And what there is still sinful or imperfect also in them shall not be accounted as sin or defect, even [and that, too] for Christ’s sake; but the entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. 3] Therefore we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy, but as it is written, 1 Cor. 1, 31: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, namely, that he has a gracious God. For thus all is well. 4] We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true.

(Smalcald Articles, 1537, Part III, Article XIII: How Man is Justified Before God, and His Good Works, sections 2-4)

[O]ur churches are now, through God’s grace, so enlightened and equipped with the pure Word and right use of the Sacraments, with knowledge of the various callings and of right works, . . .

(Ibid., Preface, section 10)

Faith is a divine work in us which changes us and makes us to be born anew of God, John 1[:12, 13], It kills the old Adam and makes us altogether different men, in heart and spirit and mind and powers; and it brings with it the Holy Spirit. Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good works incessantly . . . Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace . . . this is the work which the Holy Spirit performs in faith. Because of it, without compulsion, a person is ready and glad to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, out of love and praise to God who has shown him this grace.

(Preface to Romans; Althaus, 235; cf. LW, Vol. XXXV, 370 ff.)

Man, on the other hand, sees Christendom contending with the Gospel and faith against the world and the devil. This involves warfare and unrest, and armies are arrayed; mountains and mountain peaks are pertinent subjects there, and wisdom and virtue come into play. But before God gentle and calm tranquillity prevails. He dwells in a cheerful and clear conscience. Inwardly, that is where God dwells. As Psalm 76:2 testifies, His abode has been established in peace. Therefore God moves and rides in His Christians as in a comfortable, covered wagon, and they travel together from this life into life eternal. For the wagon is not stationary, which means that the Christians increase daily in spiritual stature, always possessing the peace of a good conscience.

(Commentary on Psalm 68 [verses 17, 19]; 1521; LW, Vol. XIII, 20)

True faith is not idle. We can, therefore, ascertain and recognize those who have true faith from the effect or from what follows.

(Althaus, 246; WA, Vol. 39-I, 114; cf. LW, Vol. XXXIV, 183)

When no work is there then faith has been completely lost.

(Ibid., 246; WA, Vol. 39-II, 248)

For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith.

(Ibid., 246; WA, Vol. 39-I, 106, 114; cf. LW, Vol. XXXIV, 176, 183)

Works are a certain sign, like a seal on a letter, which makes me certain that my faith is genuine.

(Ibid., 247; WA, Vol. X-III, 225)

Works assure us and bear witness before men and the brethren and even before our own selves that we truly believe and that we are sons of God in hope and heirs of eternal life.

(Ibid., 247; WA, Vol. 39-I, 292; cf. 293)

[W]e are commanded to make our calling certain by good works (II Pet. 1:10).

(Ibid., 247; WA, Vol. 39-II, 248)

Our renewal [novitas] is thus necessary but neither for our salvation nor for our justification.

(Ibid., 249; WA, Vol. 39-I, 225; cf. 241)

[Though] works are necessary to salvation, they do not work salvation, for faith alone gives life.

(Ibid., 250; WA, Vol. 39-I, 96; cf. 104; cf. LW, Vol. XXXIV, 165, 172)

Whoever has had faith at some time but now has no love, no longer has that faith; rather, he has lost the faith even though he has performed miracles through faith. Such a faith is then either not a true and genuine faith or it was never present.

(Ibid., 435; WA, Vol. XXXIV-I, 168)

Where is the fruit that shows you really believe? . . .

Christ has not died so that you could remain such a sinner; rather, he died so that sin might be put to death and destroyed and that you might now begin to love God and your neighbor. Faith takes sins away and puts them to death so that you should live not in them but in righteousness. Therefore demonstrate by your works and by your fruits that you have faith . . . [Whoever believes] will say it with his deeds – or forget about having the reputation of being a believer . . . Love follows true faith . . . One should do everything that is good so that faith does not become an empty husk but may be true and genuine.

(Ibid., 448-449; Sermon on 1 John 4:16 ff., 1545; WA, Vol. 49, 783)

I must also bring that glory [which comes from works of love] with me or God will not treat me in a friendly way.

(Ibid., 453; WA, Vol. XXXVI, 446)

Bibliography of Sources

Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

Large Catechism, 1529, translated by John Nicholas Lenker, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1935.

Large Catechism, 1529, from Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English, translated by F. Bente and W.H.T. Dau, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. The entire Book of Concord (including also Luther’s Small Catechism and Smalcald Articles) is available online.

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

Smalcald Articles, 1537, from Triglot Concordia (see two entries above)

Small Catechism, 1529, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1943.

Three Treatises [from 1520], Philadelphia: Fortress Press, revised edition, 1970 (derived from Luther’s Works [LW] ).

Weimar Ausgabe (WA) edition of Luther's writings (Werke) in German, 1883.

Martin Luther on Crucifixes, Images and Statues of Saints, and the Sign of the Cross

Painting by Lutheran Lucas Cranach, of Martin Luther preaching in Wittenberg

All words below are from Martin Luther, from primary sources. This material is drawn from Chapter Ten of my book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise.

CRUCIFIXES

The custom of holding a crucifix before a dying person has kept many in the Christian faith and has enabled them to die with a confident faith in the crucified Christ.

(Sermons on John, Chapters 1-4, 1539; LW, Vol. XXII, 147)

It was a good practice to hold a wooden crucifix before the eyes of the dying or to press it into their hands. This brought the suffering and death of Christ to mind and comforted the dying. But the others, who haughtily relied on their good works, entered a heaven that contained a sizzling fire. For they were drawn away from Christ and failed to impress His life-giving passion and death upon their hearts.

(Sermons on John, Chapters 6-8, 1532; LW, Vol. XXIII, 360)

[W]hen I hear of Christ, an image of a man hanging on a cross takes form in my heart, just as the reflection of my face naturally appears in the water when I look into it. If it is not a sin but good to have an image of Christ in my heart, why should it be a sin to have it in my eyes?

(Against the Heavenly Prophets, 1525; LW, Vol. 40, 99-100)

IMAGES AND STATUES OF SAINTS

Now we do not request more than that one permit us to regard a crucifix or a saint’s image as a witness, for remembrance, as a sign as that image of Caesar was. Should it not be as possible for us without sin to have a crucifix or an image of Mary, as it was for the Jews and Christ himself to have an image of Caesar who, pagan and now dead, belonged to the devil? Indeed the Caesar had coined his image to glorify himself. However, we seek neither to receive nor give honor in this matter, and are yet so strongly condemned, while Christ’s possession of such an abominable and shameful image remains uncondemned.

(Against the Heavenly Prophets, 1525; LW, Vol. 40, 96)

And I say at the outset that according to the law of Moses no other images are forbidden than an image of God which one worships. A crucifix, on the other hand, or any other holy image is not forbidden.

(Ibid., 85-86)

Where however images or statues are made without idolatry, then such making of them is not forbidden.

[M]y image breakers must also let me keep, wear, and look at a crucifix or a Madonna . . . as long as I do not worship them, but only have them as memorials.

(Ibid., 86, 88)

But images for memorial and witness, such as crucifixes and images of saints, are to be tolerated . . . And they are not only to be tolerated, but for the sake of the memorial and the witness they are praiseworthy and honorable . . .

(Ibid., 91)

SIGN OF THE CROSS

Morning Prayer

In the morning, when you get up, make the sign of the holy cross and say:

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen . . .

In the evening, when you go to bed, make the sign of the holy cross and say:

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

(Small Catechism, 1529, Section II: How the Head of the Family Should Teach His Household to Pray Morning and Evening, 22-23)

Thus has originated and continued among us the custom of saying grace and returning thanks at meals, and other prayers for both morning and evening. From the same source came the practice with children of crossing themselves in sight or hearing of terrifying occurrences . . . .

(Large Catechism, 1529, The Second Commandment, section 31, p. 57)

If the devil puts it into your head that you lack the holiness, piety, and worthiness of David and for this reason cannot be sure that God will hear you, make the sign of the cross, and say to yourself: “Let those be pious and worthy who will! I know for a certainty that I am a creature of the same God who made David. And David, regardless of his holiness, has no better or greater God than I have.”

(Psalm 118, LW, Vol. XIV, 61)

If you should have a poltergeist and tapping spirit in your house, do not go and discuss it here and there, but know that it is not a good spirit which has not come from God. Cross yourself quietly and trust in your faith.

(Sermon for the Festival of the Epiphany, LW, Vol. 52, 178-79)

Bibliography of Primary Sources

Large Catechism, 1529, translated by John Nicholas Lenker, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1935.

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

Small Catechism, 1529, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1943.

Martin Luther's Opinion of (the Catholic Sacrament of) Confirmation

Wittenberg in 1536

Excerpt from my book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise, Chapter Eight:

* * * * *

Luther rejected confirmation as a sacrament. That much is clear. But he didn’t reject it altogether, as a useful (though not required) rite. Lutherans have differed on the question through the centuries, with some observing it and others not doing so. We again find Luther, characteristically, refusing to disallow it, and he preached on at least one occasion that he would not find fault:

. . . if every pastor examines the faith of the children . . . lays hands on them, and confirms them.

(in James F. White, Protestant Worship: Traditions in Transition, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989, 45; sermon of 15 March 1523 [WA, Vol. XI, 66] )

Some have maintained that Luther’s Small Catechism, written for children, was, in effect, a means for parents to prepare their children for confirmation, so that later a pastor could examine and confirm them.

Luther approved of, for example, the Brandenburg Church Order of 1540, written by Johannes Bugenhagen, that included confirmation and even episcopal church government. He also supported the Wittenberg Church Order, composed by Melanchthon in 1545. This included a confirmation rite as well.

Luther was fairly clear in his treatment of the topic in his 1520 treatise, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church:

I wonder what could have possessed them to make a sacrament of confirmation out of the laying on of hands, (Mark 16:18; Acts 6:6, Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6) which Christ employed when He blessed young children, (Mark 10:16) and the apostles when they imparted the Holy Spirit, ordained elders and cured the sick, as the Apostle writes to Timothy, “Lay hands suddenly on no man.” (1 Timothy 5:22) Why have they not also turned the sacrament of the bread into confirmation? For it is written in Acts 9:19, “And when he had taken meat he was strengthened,” and in Psalm 104:15, “And that bread may cheer man’s heart. “Confirmation would thus include three sacraments — the bread, ordination, and confirmation itself. But if everything the apostles did is a sacrament, why have they not rather made preaching a sacrament?

I do not say this because I condemn the seven sacraments, but because I deny that they can be proved from the Scriptures. Would to God we had in the Church such a laying on of hands as there was in apostolic times, whether we called it confirmation or healing! But there is nothing left of it now but what we ourselves have invented to adorn the office of the bishops, that they may have at least something to do in the Church. For after they relinquished to their inferiors those arduous sacraments together with the Word, as being too common for themselves, — since, forsooth, whatever the divine Majesty has instituted has to be despised of men — it was no more than right that we should discover something easy and not too burdensome for such delicate and great heroes to do, and should by no means entrust it to the lower clergy as something common — for whatever human wisdom has decreed has to be held in honor among men! Therefore, as are the priests, so let their ministry and duty be. For a bishop who does not preach the Gospel or care for souls, what is he but an idol in the world, having but the name and appearance of a bishop? (1 Corinthians 8:4) But we seek, instead of this, sacraments that have been divinely instituted, among which we see no reason for numbering confirmation. For, in order that there be a sacrament, there is required above all things a word of divine promise, whereby faith, may be trained. But we read nowhere that Christ ever gave a promise concerning confirmation, although He laid hands on many and included the laying on of hands among the signs in Mark 16:18 “They shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” Yet no one referred this to a sacrament, nor can this be done.

Hence it is sufficient to regard confirmation as a certain churchly rite or sacramental ceremony, similar to other ceremonies, such as the blessing of holy water and the like. For if every other creature is sanctified by the word and by prayer, (1 Timothy 4:4 f.) why should not much rather man be sanctified by the same means? Still, these things cannot be called sacraments of faith, because there is no divine promise connected with them, neither do they save; but sacraments do save those who believe the divine promise.

(Albert T. W. Steinhaeuser / Robert E. Smith version; cf. Three Treatises section: pp. 218-219)

Philip Melanchthon’s Apology for the Augsburg Confession (1530) states:

6] Confirmation and Extreme Unction are rites received from the Fathers which not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, because they do not have God's command. Therefore it is not useless to distinguish these rites from the former, which have God's express command and a clear promise of grace.

(Article XIII [VII]: Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments; from Triglot Concordia)

Bibliography of Sources

The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, translated by Albert T. W. Steinhaeuser; English text edited and modernized by Robert E. Smith [2002]. Originally published in Works of Martin Luther with Introductions and Notes, Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915, 167-293. Available online.

Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English, translated by F. Bente and W.H.T. Dau, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. The entire Book of Concord (including the Apology for the Augsburg Confession) is available online.

Martin Luther On the Sacrament of Absolution (and Private Confession)

Martin Luther, painted by Lucas Cranach the Elder in 1533 (age 50)

Excerpt from my book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise, Chapter Eight:

* * * * *

Although he didn’t regard it as a sacrament (but maybe he did, according to one citation below?), Martin Luther nevertheless thought very highly of absolution (preceded by confession) and wished to retain the practice in Lutheranism:

What is the Office of the Keys?

It is the peculiar power which Christ has given to His Church on earth to forgive the sins of penitent sinners, but to retain the sins of the impenitent as long as they do not repent. . . .

What do you believe according to these words?

. . . when they absolve those who repent of their sins and are willing to amend, this is as valid and certain, in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt with us Himself.

What is Confession?

Confession embraces two parts. One is that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the pastor as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that by it our sins are forgiven before God in heaven.

(Small Catechism, 1529, 18-19)

Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine.

(Smalcald Articles, 1537; Part III, Article III: Confession, section 1)

I wish him [the pope] to keep his hands off the confession and not make of it a compulsion or command, which he has not the power to do. Nevertheless I will allow no man to take private confession away from me, and I would not give it up for all the treasures in the world, since I know what comfort and strength it has given me. No one knows what it can do for him except one who has struggled often and long with the devil. Yea, the devil would have slain me long ago, if the confession had not sustained me . . .

Therefore, no man shall forbid the confession nor keep or draw any one away from it. And if any one is wrestling with his sins and wants to be rid of them and desires a sure word on the matter, let him go and confess to another in secret, and accept what he says to him as if God himself had spoken it through the mouth of this person. However, one who has a strong, firm faith that his sins are forgiven may let this confession go and confess to God alone. But how many have such a strong faith? Therefore, as I have said, I will not let this private confession be taken from me. But I will not have anybody forced to it, but left to each one’s free will.

For our God, the God we have, is not so niggardly that he has left us with only one comfort or strengthening for our conscience, or only one absolution, but we have many absolutions in the gospel and we are richly showered with many absolutions. For instance, we have this in the gospel: “If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” [Matt. 6:14]. Another comfort we have in the Lord's Prayer: “Forgive us our trespasses,” etc. [Matt. 6:12]. A third is our baptism, when I reason thus: See, my Lord, I have been baptized in thy name so that I may be assured of thy grace and mercy. Then we have private confession, when I go and receive a sure absolution as if God himself spoke it, so that I may be assured that my sins are forgiven. Finally, I take to myself the blessed sacrament, when I eat his body and drink his blood as a sign that I am rid of my sins and God has freed me from all my frailties; and in order to make me sure of this, he gives me his body to eat and his blood to drink, so that I shall not and cannot doubt that I have a gracious God.

Thus you see that confession must not be despised, but that it is a comforting thing.

(Sermon of 16 March 1522; LW, Vol. 51, 97-98)

Luther referred to absolution as a “sacrament” in a short appendix to the Small Catechism, in its first Wittenberg Edition (1529):

[the penitent in confession] Therefore, I beseech you that in God’s stead you will declare forgiveness to me and comfort me with God’s Word.

Another Form of Confession.

I confess before God and you, that I am a miserable sinner and full of all sin, of unbelief, and of blasphemy. I also feel that God’s Word is not bringing forth fruit in me. I hear it, but I do not receive it earnestly. I do not show the works of love toward my neighbor; I am incensed, full of hate and envy toward him. I am impatient, avaricious, and inclined to everything that is evil. Therefore my heart and conscience are heavy and I would gladly be freed of the sins. I plead, please strengthen my little faith and comfort my weak conscience by means of the Divine Word and promise.

Why dost thou desire to receive the Sacrament?

Because I desire to strengthen my soul with God’s word and tokens and to obtain grace.

But in this Office thou dost obtain forgiveness of sin.

And why not? But I want to add God’s token also to the Word; and to seek God’s Word frequently is much the better.

(A Short Method of Confessing to the Priest, For the Use of Simple Folk, PE, Vol. VI, 215-216)

As to the current practice of private confession, I am heartily in favor of it, even though it cannot be proved from the Scriptures. It is useful, even necessary, and I would not have it abolished. Indeed, I rejoice that it exists in the church of Christ, for it is a cure without equal for distressed consciences. For when we have laid bare our conscience to our brother and privately made known to him the evil that lurked within, we receive from our brother’s lips the word of confort spoken by God himself.

. . . I have no doubt but that every one is absolved from his secret sins when he has made confession, privately before any brother, either of his own accord or after being rebuked . . .

(The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, in Three Treatises, 212, 214)

Paul Althaus summarizes Luther’s position on confession:

Luther rejects the ecclesiastical rule which requires confession. It cannot be made a law, but it is an indispensable form of the gospel. It is therefore not a requirement but rather a gift which we cannot do without.

(Althaus, 317; Luther appears to apply the function of hearing a confession and giving absolution to all Christians, however; not solely to ordained Lutheran pastors)

The Apology for the Augsburg Confession, written by Luther’s close friend Philip Melanchthon in 1531, and binding on Lutherans, describes absolution as a sacrament:

3) If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God’s command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross].

4) Therefore Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord’s body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us . . .

(Article XIII [VII]: Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments; from Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English, translated by F. Bente and W.H.T. Dau, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921)

Bibliography of Sources

Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

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

Smalcald Articles, 1537, from Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English, translated by F. Bente and W.H.T. Dau, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. Available online.

Small Catechism, 1529, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1943.

Three Treatises [from 1520], Philadelphia: Fortress Press, revised edition, 1970 (derived from Luther’s Works [LW] ).

Works of Martin Luther (PE), edited and translated by C.M. Jacobs and A.T.W. Steinhaeuser et al; Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Co. and the Castle Press, 1930, six volumes; also reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982.

How the Early Protestants Stole Thousands of Catholic Churches and Monasteries and Called These Mortal Sins "Reform"

Ruin of Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire

[ source ]

1) Erasmus (The leading scholar in Europe: 1521)

I greatly wonder, my dear Jonas, what god has stirred up the heart of Luther, in so far as he assails with such license of pen the Roman pontiff, all the universities, philosophy, and the mendicant orders . . .

Perhaps there were some who out of honest zeal favored calling the orders and princes of the Church to better things. But I do not know if they are those who under this pretext covet the wealth of the churchmen. I judge nothing to be more wicked and destructive of public tranquility than this . . . This certainly is a fine turn of affairs, if property is wickedly taken away from priests so that soldiers may make use of it in worse fashion; and the latter squander their own wealth, and sometimes that of others, so that no one benefits.

(in Christian Humanism and the Reformation, [selections from Erasmus], edited and translated by John C. Olin, New York: Harper & Row, 1965, 152, 157-159, 161-163; Letter to Jodocus Jonas, from Louvain, May 10, 1521)

2) Hartmann Grisar (Catholic historian) / Martin Luther (1522)

Count Johann Heinrich of Schwarzburg became the founder of Lutheranism in his territories in virtue of a decree authorized by Luther . . . Luther replied on December 12, 1522 that Count Gunther had naturally expected the monks to preach the Gospel, but "if witnesses could testify that they did not preach the true Gospel (of Luther), but papistical heresies, the count would have the right, nay, the duty, to oust them from their parishes."

[Luther] For it is not unlawful, indeed, it is absolutely right to drive the wolf from the sheepfold . . . A preacher is not given property and tithes in order that he should do injury, but that he should labor profitably. If he does not work to the advantage of the people, the endowments are his no longer.

[ . . . ]

This principle was promptly applied at Schwartzburg. The Count seized the properties and revoked the privileges which his father had given to the Church . . . Luther's reply concerning temporal possessions, taken in connection with certain other statements made by him, reveals an idea truly revolutionary in its consequences. It indicated that, if the clergy refused to preach the new religion, in Germany and in the Church in general, ecclesiastical possessions were no longer secure . . . It is hardly probable that Luther realized in advance all the consequences of his decision in the Schwarzburg affair, though practically it had been acted upon ever since the beginning of the new movement.

(Martin Luther: His Life and Work, translated from the 2nd German edition by Frank J. Eble, Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1950; originally 1930, 228-229)

Partial translation in Grisar, Luther, translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, 6 volumes, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915; Vol. VI, 244: Luther: "If the preacher does not make men pious, the goods are no longer his."

3) Martin Luther (1523)

. . . there is need of great care, lest the possessions of such vacated foundations become common plunder and everyone make off with what he can get . . . the blame is laid at my door whenever monasteries and foundations are vacated . . . This makes me unwilling to take the additional blame if some greedy bellies should grab these spiritual possessions and claim, in excuse of their conduct, that I was the cause of it . . .

In the first place: it would indeed be well if no rural monasteries, such as those of the Benedictines, Cistercians, Celestines, and the like, had ever appeared upon earth. But now that they are here, the best thing is to suffer them to pass away or to assist them, wherever one properly can, to disappear altogether. This may be done in the following ways. first, by suffering the inmates to leave, if they choose, of their own free will . . .

[then follows an exhortation to charitably provide for those who won't or can't leave]

I advise the temporal authorities, however, to take over the possessions of such monasteries . . . it is not a case of greed opposing the spiritual possessions, but of Christian faith opposing the monasteries . . . I am writing this for those only who understand the Gospel and who have the right to take such action in their own lands, cities and jurisdiction . . .

. . . the third way is best, namely, to devote all remaining possessions to the common fund of a common chest, out of which gifts and loans might be made, in Christian love, to all the needy in the land, whether nobles or commons . . .

I am setting down this advice in accordance with Christian love for Christians alone. We must expect greed to creep in here and there . . . it is better that greed take too much in an orderly way than that the whole thing become common plunder, as it happened in Bohemia. Let everyone examine himself to see what he should take for his own needs and what he should leave for the common chest.

In the third place: the same procedure should be followed with respect to abbacies, foundations, and chapters in control of lands, cities and other possessions. For such bishops and foundations are neither bishops nor foundations; they are really at bottom temporal lords sailing under a spiritual name . . .

In the fourth place: part of the possessions of the monasteries and foundations . . . are based upon usury, which now calls itself everywhere "interest," and which has in but a few years swallowed up the whole world . . . God says, "I hate robbery for burnt offering." [Is 61:8] . . .

But whosoever will not follow this advice nor curb his greed, of him I wash my hands.

(Preface to an Ordinance of a Common Chest, in Works of Martin Luther [Philadephia edition [PE], IV, 92-98, translated by A.T.W. Steinhaeuser; WA, XII, 11-30; EA, XXII, 106-130; citations from 93-98)

Who does not see that all bishops, foundations, monastic houses, universities, with all that are therein, rage against this clear word of Christ . . .? Hence they are certainly to be regarded as murderers, thieves, wolves and apostate Christians . . .

. . . the hearers not only have the power and the right to judge all preaching, but are obliged to judge it under penalty of forfeiting the favor of Divine Majesty. Thus we see in how unchristian a manner the despots dealt with us when they deprived us of this right and appropriated it to themselves. For this thing alone they have richly deserved to be cast out of the Christian Church and driven forth as wolves, thieves and murderers . . .

(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, PE, IV, 75-85, translated by A.T.W. Steinhaeuser; WA, XI, 406 ff.; EA, XXII, 141 ff.; citations from 75-79)

4) Warren Carroll (Catholic historian) / Lutherans (1530)

Early in July the bishops presented their complaints to the Diet [of Augsburg: 1530] of the plundering and destruction of churches, seizure of monasteries and hospitals, prohibition of Masses, and attacks on religious processions by the Protestants. When Charles called upon the Protestants to restore the property they had seized, they said that to do so would be against their consciences. Charles responded crushingly: 'The Word of God, the Gospel, and every law civil and canonical, forbid a man to appropriate to himself the property of another.' He said that as Emperor he had the duty of guarding the rights of all, especially those Catholics unwilling to accept Protestantism or go into exile, who should at least be allowed to remain in their homes and practice their ancestral faith, specifically the Mass; the Protestants replied that they would not tolerate the Mass . . .

(The Cleaving of Christendom; from the series, A History of Christendom, Volume 4, Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000, 103-107)

5) Martin Luther (1541)

Luther was still rationalizing this outrageous and unjust criminal theft in 1541:
If they are not the church but the devil's whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property.

(Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage, in Luther's Works [LW], vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from p. 220)

6) A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland (1826), by the non-Catholic social reformer William Cobbett (1763-1835). The online introduction to the book notes:

Cobbett's ideas found little favour with "respectable" historians then or for long afterwards . . . It is interesting, however, to note that one of Cobbett's theses -- that the Reformation in England had little popular support and was the product of a handful of fanatics backed by the awesome power of the Tudor Monarchy and supported by the greed of those who looted the monasteries and Churches -- is now increasingly being accepted by historians. See for example the TV series and book A History of Britain by Simon Schama, or the more specialised and detailed account The Stripping of The Altars by Eamon Duffy.

Here are some excerpts from Cobbett:

54. When I come to speak of the measures by which the monasteries were robbed, devastated and destroyed in England and Ireland, I shall show how unjust, base and ungrateful, this railing against them is; and how foolish it is besides. I shall show the various ways in which they were greatly useful to the community; and I shall especially show how they operated in behalf of the labouring and poorer classes of the people. But, in this place, I shall merely describe, in the shortest manner possible, the origin and nature of those institutions, and the extent to which they existed in England.

60. England, more, perhaps, than any other country in Europe,
abounded in such institutions, and these more richly endowed than any
where else. In England, there was, on an average, more than twenty
(we shall see the exact number by-and-by) of those establishments to
a county! Here was a prize for an unjust and cruel tyrant to lay his
lawless hands upon, and for "Reformation" gentry to share amongst
them! Here was enough, indeed, to make robbers on a grand scale cry
out against "monkish ignorance and superstition"! No wonder that the
bowels of CRANMER, KNOX, and all their mongrel litter, yearned so
piteously as they did, when they cast their pious eyes on all the
farms and manors, and on all the silver and gold ornaments belonging
to these communities! We shall see, by-and-by, with what alacrity
they ousted, plundered, and pulled down: we shall see them robbing,
under the basest pretences, even the altars of the country parish
churches, down to the very smallest of those churches, and down to
the value of five shillings. But, we must first take a view of the
motives which led the tyrant, Henry VIII., to set their devastating
and plundering faculties in motion.

64. By making himself the supreme head of the Church, he made
himself, he having the sword and the gibbet at his command, master of
all the property of that Church, including that of the monasteries!
His counsellors and courtiers knew this; and, as it was soon
discovered that a sweeping confiscation would take place, the
parliament was by no means backward in aiding his designs, every one
hoping to share in the plunder. The first step was to pass acts
taking from the POPE all authority and power over the Church in
England, and giving to the King all authority whatever as to
ecclesiastical matters. . . .

119. In paragraphs from 55 to 60 inclusive, we have seen how
monasteries arose, and what sort of institutions they were. There
were, in England, at the time we are speaking of, 645 of theee
institutions; besides 90 Colleges, 110 Hospitals, and 2374 Chantries
and Free-Chapels. The whole were seized on, first and last, taken
into the hands of the King, and by him granted to those who aided and
abetted him in the work of plunder.

120. I pray you, my friends, sensible and just English men, to
observe here, that this was a great mass of landed property; that
this property was not by any means used for the sole benefit of
monks, friars, and nuns; that, for the far greater part, its rents
flowed immediately back amongst the people at large; and, that, if it
had never been an object of plunder, England never would, and never
could, have heard the hideous sound of the words pauper and poor-
rate. You have seen, in paragraph 52, in what manner the tithes arose
and how they were disposed of; and you are, by-and-by, to see how the
rents of the monasteries were distributed.

156. We have already seen something of these pretences, motives and
acts of tyranny and barbarity; we have seen that the beastly lust of
the chief tyrant was the groundwork of what is called the
"Reformation"; we have seen that he could not have proceeded in his
course without the concurrence of the Parliament; we have seen that,
to obtain that concurrence, he held out to those who composed it a
participation in the spoils of the Monasteries; and, when we look at
the magnitude of their possessions, when we consider the beauty and
fertility of the spots on which they, in general, were situated, when
we think of the envy which the love borne them by the people must
have excited in the hearts of a great many of the noblemen and
gentlemen; when we thus reflect, we are not surprised, that these
were eager for a "Reformation" that promised to transfer the envied
possessions to them.

160. The monks and nuns, who had never dreamed of the possibility of
such proceedings, who had never had an idea that Magna Charta and all
the laws of the land could be set aside in a moment, and whose
recluse and peaceful lives rendered them wholly unfit to cope with at
once crafty and desperate villany, fell before these ruffians as
chickens fall before the kite. The reports, made by these villains,
met with no contradiction; the accused parties had no means of making
a defence; there was no court for them to appear in; they dared. not,
even if they had the means, to offer a defence or make a complaint;
for they had seen the horrible consequences, the burnings, the
rippings up, of all those of their brethren who had ventured to
whisper their dissent from any dogma or decree of the tyrant. The
project was to despoil people of their property; and yet the parties,
from whom the property was to be taken, were to have no court in
which to plead their cause, no means of obtaining a hearing, could
make even no complaint but at the peril of their lives. They, and
those who depended on them, were to be, at once, stripped of this
great mass of property, without any other ground than that of
reports, made by men, sent, as the malignant HUME himself confesses,
for the express purpose of finding a pretence for the dissolution of
the Monasteries and for the King's taking to himself property that
had never belonged to him or his predecessors.

7) Will Durant (secular historian)

The cities found Protestantism profitable . . . for a slight alteration in their theological garb they escaped from episcopal taxes and courts, and could appropriate pleasant parcels of ecclesiastical property . . . The princes . . . could be spiritual as well as temporal lords, and all the wealth of the Church could be theirs . . . The Lutheran princes suppressed all monasteries in their territory except a few whose inmates had embraced the Protestant faith.

(The Reformation, [volume 6 of 10-volume The Story of Civilization, 1967], New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957, 438-439)

8) Hilaire Belloc (Catholic historian)

There came - round about 1536-40 -- a change . . . The temptation to loot Church property and the habit of doing so had appeared and was growing; and this rapidly created a vested interest in promoting the change of religion. Those who attacked Catholic doctrine, as, for instance, in the matters of celibacy in the monastic orders . . . opened the door for the seizure of the enormous clerical endowments . . . by the Princes . . . The property of convents and monasteries passed wholesale to the looters over great areas of Christendom: Scandinavia, the British Isles, the Northern Netherlands, much of the Germanies and many of the Swiss Cantons. The endowments of hospitals, colleges, schools, guilds, were largely though not wholly seized . . . Such an economic change in so short a time our civilization had never seen . . . The new adventurers and the older gentry who had so suddenly enriched themselves, saw, in the return of Catholicism, peril to their immense new fortunes.

(Characters of the Reformation, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1958, 9-10)

The great Scottish nobles . . . supported the religious revolution because it gave them the power to loot the Church and the monarchy wholesale.

(Ibid., 112)

9) A. G. Dickens (Protestant historian)

In Sweden Gustavus Vasa deprived the Church of all its landed properties . . . The proportion of land held by the crown increased during his reign from 5.5% to 28%: that of the Church from 21% to nil.

(Reformation and Society in 16th-Century Europe, London: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966, 191)

10) Henri Daniel-Rops (Catholic historian)

Right from the beginning, Luther's spiritual revolt had let loose material greed. The German rulers, the Scandinavian monarchs and Henry VIII of England had all taken advantage of the break from papal tutelage to appropriate both the wealth and the control of their respective Churches.

(The Protestant Reformation, Vol. 2, translated by Audrey Butler, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1961, 309-310)

11) Lutheran Philip Melanchthon on the German Princes

They do not care in the least about religion; they are only anxious to get dominion into their hands, to be free from the control of bishops . . . Under cover of the Gospel, the princes
were only intent on the plunder of the Churches.

(in Durant, ibid., 438, 440)

12) Wikipedia: "Dissolution of the Monasteries":

The Dissolution of the Monasteries, sometimes referred to as the Suppression of the Monasteries, was the formal process between 1536 and 1541 by which Henry VIII disbanded monastic communities in England, Wales and Ireland and confiscated their property. He was given the authority to do this by the Act of Supremacy, passed by Parliament in 1534, which made him Supreme Head of the Church in England, and by the First Suppression Act (1536) and the Second Suppression Act (1539). . . .

European Precedents

While these transactions were going on in England, elsewhere in Europe events were taking place which presaged a storm. In 1521, Martin Luther had published 'De votis monasticis' (Latin: 'On the monastic vows'), a treatise which declared that the monastic life had no scriptural basis, was pointless and also actively immoral in that it was not compatible with the true spirit of Christianity. Luther also declared that monastic vows were meaningless and that no one should feel bound by them. These views had an immediate effect: a special meeting of German members of the Augustinian Friars, (of which Luther was part) held the same year accepted them and voted that henceforth every member of the regular clergy should be free to renounce their vows, resign their offices and to get married. At Luther's home monastery in Wittenberg all the monks but one did so.

News of these events did not take long to spread among Protestant-minded (and acquisitive) rulers across Europe, and some, particularly in Scandinavia, moved very quickly. In Sweden in 1527 King Gustavus Vasa secured an edict of the Diet allowing him to confiscate any monastic lands he deemed necessary to increase royal revenues; and to force the return of properties to the descendents of those who had donated them. Gustav thus gained large estates for himself while acquiring a trane of diehard supporters. The Swedish monasteries and convents were simultaneously deprived of their subsistence, with the result that some collapsed immediately, while others lingered on for a few decades before persecution and forfeitures finally caused them all to disappear by 1580. In Denmark, King Frederick I of Denmark made his grab in 1528, confiscating 15 of the houses of the wealthiest monasteries and convents. Further laws under his successor over the course of the 1530s banned the friars, and forced monks and nuns to transfer title to their houses to the crown, which parsed them out to supportive nobles, who were soon found enjoying the fruits of the former monastic lands. Danish monastic life was to vanish in a way identical to that of Sweden.

In Switzerland, too, monasteries came under threat. In 1523 the government of the city-state of Zurich pressured nuns to leave their convents and marry, and followed up the next year by dissolving all monasteries in its territory, under the pretext of using their revenues to fund education and help the poor. The former religious who cooperated with the scheme were offered help with learning a trade for their new secular lives and in some instances were granted pensions. The city of Basel followed suit in 1529 and Geneva adopted the same policy in 1530. An attempt was also made in 1530 to dissolve the famous Abbey of St. Gall, which was a state of the Holy Roman Empire in its own right, but this ultimately failed and St Gall survived.

It is impossible that these moves went unnoticed by the English government and particularly by Thomas Cromwell, shortly to become Henry VIII's chief minister, who promised to make his king wealthier than any previous English monarch.

Process

On failing famously to receive his desired annulment from the Pope, Henry had himself declared Supreme Head of the Church in England in February 1531. In April 1533 an Act in Restraint of Appeals eliminated the right of clergy to appeal to "foreign tribunals" (Rome) over the King's head in any spiritual or financial matter.

In 1534 Henry had Parliament authorise Thomas Cromwell, to "visit" all the monasteries (which included all abbeys, priories and convents), ostensibly to make sure their members were instructed in the new rules for their supervision by the King instead of the Pope, but actually to inventory their assets (see Valor Ecclesiasticus). A few months later, in January 1535 when the consternation at having a lay visitation instead of a bishop's had settled down, Cromwell's visitation authority was delegated to a commission of laymen including Layton, Pollard and Moyle, for the purpose of ascertaining what wealth the monasteries held and find pretexts for the plunder that was about to ensue. This phase is termed the "Visitation of the Monasteries."

In the summer of that year, the visitors started their work, and "preachers" and "railers" were sent out to deliver sermons from the pulpits of the churches on three themes:

• The monks and nuns in the monasteries were called sinful "hypocrites", "sorcerers" and "idle drones", who were living lives of luxury and engaging in every kind of sin;
• Those monks and nuns were living off the working people and giving nothing back and, thus, were a serious drain on England's economy;
• If the King received all the property of the monasteries, he would never again need taxes from the people.

Meanwhile, during the autumn of 1535, the visiting commissioners were sending back to Cromwell written reports of all the lurid doings they claimed to be discovering, sexual as well as financial. A "horrified" Parliament enacted laws in early 1536, relying in large part on the reports of "impropriety" Cromwell had received, provided for the King to seize all the monasteries with annual incomes of less than £200, and this was quickly done: the smaller, less influential houses were emptied, their properties confiscated and those monks and nuns who cooperated were given preferments or pensioned off. Those who resisted were imprisoned or executed. Monastic life had already seen some decline. By 1536, the thirteen Cistercian houses in Wales held only 85 monks amongst them. However, the claims of misbehaviour were greatly exaggerated.

These moves did not raise as much capital as had been expected, even after the king re-chartered some of the confiscated monasteries he confiscated them yet again. In April 1539 a new Parliament passed a law giving the King the rest of the monasteries in England. Some of the abbots resisted, and that autumn the abbots of Colchester, Glastonbury, and Reading were hanged, drawn and quartered for treason. (The Carthusian priors of Beauvale, London, and Axholme, were executed in 1535 for refusal to recognise Henry's Act of Supremacy.) St. Benet's Abbey in Norfolk was the only abbey in England which escaped dissolution.

The other abbots signed their abbeys over to the King. Some of the confiscated church buildings were destroyed for the valuable lead, and the slate roofs and stone sold or reused for secular buildings. Some of the smaller Benedictine houses were taken over as parish churches, and were even bought for the purpose by wealthy parishes. The tradition that there was widespread destruction and iconoclasm, that altars and windows were smashed, partly confuses the damage done in the 1530s with the damage wreaked by the Puritans in the next century. Relics were burned and pilgrimages prohibited. Great abbeys and priories like Glastonbury, Walsingham, Bury St Edmunds, Shaftesbury and Canterbury, which had flourished as pilgrimage destinations, were ruined.

Still, Henry needed more money; so many of the abbeys now in his possession were resold to the new Tudor gentry, binding them as a class most firmly to the new Protestant settlement.

Consequences

The abbeys of England, Wales and Ireland had been among the greatest landowners and the largest institutions in the kingdom. Particularly in areas far from London, the abbeys, convents and priories were the principal centres of hospitality, learning, patronage of artists and craftsmen and sources of charity and medical care. The removal of over eight hundred such institutions, virtually overnight, rent vast gaps in the social fabric.

It is unlikely that the monastic system could have been broken simply by royal action had there not been the overwhelming bait of personal enrichment for gentry large and small, and the convictions of the small but determined Protestant faction. Anti-clericalism was a familiar feature of late-medieval Europe, producing its own strain of satiric literature that was aimed at a literate middle class.

Along with the destruction of the monasteries, some many hundreds of years old, the related destruction of the monastic libraries was perhaps the greatest cultural loss caused by the English Reformation. Worcester Priory (now Worcester Cathedral) had 600 books at the time of the dissolution. Only six of them have survived intact to the present day. At the abbey of the Augustinian Friars at York, a library of 646 volumes was destroyed, leaving only three surviving books. Some books were destroyed for their precious bindings, others were sold off by the cartload, including irreplaceable early English works. It is believed that many of the earliest Anglo-Saxon manuscripts were lost at this time. . . .

Monastic hospitals were also lost, with devastating consequences for the locals. Monasteries had also supplied free food and alms for the poor and destitute. The removal of this resource was one of the factors in the creation of the army of "sturdy beggars" that plagued late Tudor England, causing the social instability that led to the Edwardian and Elizabethan Poor Laws. On the eve of the overthrow, the various monasteries owned approximately 2,000,000 acres, over 16 percent of England, with tens of thousands of tenant farmers working those lands. The monastic landlords were appreciated for their more lenient terms, and some of their tenant families had lived on monastery lands for many generations. The aristocrats who displaced them soon demanded higher rents, immediate payment and greater productivity from their tenants. . . .

The dissolution and destruction of the monasteries and shrines was very unpopular in many areas. In the north of England, centering on Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, the suppression of the monasteries led to a popular rising, the Pilgrimage of Grace, that threatened the crown for some weeks. The demand for the restoration of some monasteries resurfaced later, in the West Country Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549. . . .

In 1536 there were major popular risings in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire and, a further rising in Norfolk the following year. Rumours were spread that the King was going to strip the parish churches too, and even tax cattle and sheep. The rebels called for an end to the dissolution of the monasteries, for the removal of Cromwell, and for Henry's daughter, and eldest child, the Catholic Mary to be named as successor in place of his younger son Edward. Henry defused the movement with solemn promises, all of which went unkept, and then summarily executed the leaders.

[see also a list of the monasteries dissolved]

13) Catholic Encyclopedia: "Suppression of English Monasteries Under Henry VIII":

It is somewhat difficult to estimate correctly the number of religious houses which passed into the king's possession in virtue of the Act of Parliament of 1536. Stowe's estimate is generally deemed sufficiently near the mark, and he says: "the number of the houses then suppressed was 376." . . .

No sooner had the process of destruction begun simultaneously all over the country than the people began at last to realize that the benefits likely to accrue to them out of the plunder were most illusory. When this was understood, it was first proposed to present a petition to the king from the Lords and Commons, pointing out the evident damage which must be done to the country at large if the measure was carried out fully; and asking that the process of suppression should be at once stopped, and that the lesser houses, which had not yet been dissolved under the authority of the Act of 1536, should be allowed to stand. Nothing, of course, came of this attempt. Henry's appetite was but whetted by what had come to him, and he only hungered for more of the spoils of the Church and the poor. The action of the Parliament in 1536 in permitting the first measure to become law made it in reality much more difficult for Henry to draw back; and in more senses than one it paved the way for the general dissolution. Here and there in the country active resistance to the work of destruction was organized, and in the case of Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, and the North generally, the popular rising of the "pilgrimage of grace" was caused in the main, or at least in great measure, by the desire of the people at large to save the religious houses from ruthless destruction. The failure of the insurrection of the "Pilgrimage of Grace" was celebrated by the execution of twelve abbots, and, to use Henry's own words, by a wholesale "tying-up" of monks. By a new and ingenious process, appropriately called "Dissolution by Attainder", an abbey was considered by the royal advisers to fall into the king's hands by the supposed or constructive treason of its superior. In this way several of the larger abbeys, with all their revenues and possessions, came into Henry's hands as a consequence of the "Pilgrimage of Grace". . . .

The autumn of 1537 saw the beginning of the fall of the friaries in England. For some reason, possibly because of their poverty, they had not been brought under the Act of 1536. For a year after the "Pilgrimage of Grace" few dissolutions of houses, other than those which came to the king by the attainder of their superiors, are recorded. With the feast of St. Michael, 1537, however, besides the convents of friars the work of securing of securing, by some means or other, the surrender of the greater houses went on rapidly. The instructions given to the royal agents are clear. They were, by all methods known to them, to get the religious "willingly to consent and agree" to their own extinction. It was only when they found "any of the said heads and convents, so appointed to be dissolved, so wilful and obstinate that they would in no wise" agree to sign and seal their own death-warrant, that the commissioners were authorized by Henry's instructions to "take possession of the house" and property by force. And whilst thus engaged, the royal agents were ordered to declare that the king had no design whatsoever upon the monastic property or system as such, or any desire to secure the total suppression of the religious houses. . . . In 1538 and 1539 some 150 monasteries of men appear to have signed away their corporate existence and their property, and by a formal deed handed over all rights to the king.

When the work had progressed sufficiently the new Parliament, which met in April, 1539, after observing that divers abbots and others had yielded up their houses to the king, "without constraint, coercion, or compulsion", confirmed these surrenders and vested all monastic property thus obtained in the Crown. Finally in the autumn of that year, Henry's triumph over the monastic orders was completed by the horrible deaths for constructive treason of the three great abbots of Glastonbury, Colchester, and Reading. And so, as one writer has said, "before the winter of 1540 had set in, the last of the abbeys had been added to the ruins with which the land was strewn from one end to the other."

13) "The Dissolution of the Monasteries," Matthew E. Bunson, This Rock (December 2006).

Bibliography (from Wikipedia)

• Geoffrey Baskerville, English Monks and the Suppression of the Monasteries (1937)
• Brendan Bradshaw, The Dissolution of the Religious Orders in Ireland under Henry VIII (1974)
• Howard Colvin, The History of the King's Works
• J.C.K. Cornwall, Wealth and Society in Early Sixteenth-Century England (Cambridge 1988)
• A. G. Dickens, The English Reformation (2nd ed. London 1989)
• Eamon Duffy (1992). The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400–1580. Yale University Press ISBN 0-300-06076-9. An interpretation radically different from that contained in this article. Duffy maintains that Henry VIII's reformation was in many ways a radical Protestant reformation, that Mary I's attempt to restore Catholicism was a Counter-Reformation effort and that her form of Catholicism was considerably different from that which Henry VIII had swept away.
• F. A. Gasquet, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (8th ed. London 1925)
• C. Haigh, The Last Days of the Lancashire Monasteries and the Pilgrimage of Grace (1969)
• ——, Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge 1975)
• David Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, vol III (1959)
• H. F. M. Prescott (1952). The Man on a Donkey. A finely researched novel, set in the form of a chronicle, of Henry VIII's dissolution of monasteries and the answering rebellion in the North, the Pilgrimage of Grace
• A. Savine, English Monasteries on the Eve of the Dissolution (Oxford 1909)
• J. Youings, The Dissolution of the Monasteries (1971)

My Name is Mud (TAO's Delightful Blog Categorization System)

I had to chuckle over this one. The Anonymous One (aka TAO), one of our Reformed brothers in Christ who don't think much of the Catholic Church, has a bunch of categories for posts on his blog. Three of the more entertaining ones are "Mud", "Ignorance," and "Insults". It's pretty hilarious how a post he wrote about me got categorized under all three. The most funny thing of all, however, is that when you look up the posts listed under each category (follow links above), there is only one post listed under each. Guess which one?! Yep, you got it!

I'm his poster boy for ignorance. This is interesting when one examines some of the other posts on TAO's blog. For example, the Northern Irish anti-Catholic zealot Ian Paisley is scolded for being in a room with a papist leading a prayer, but that is not, alas, "ignorant" enough to be categorized with my singularly dumb shenanigans. Never one to leave out the farcical element, TAO then expresses trepidation about a possible Tiber crossing by Rev. Paisley in the near future. It would be impossible to come up with a comedic script this ridiculous, folks!

In other humorous TAO news, note the following astounding remarks (complete with a link to my Anti-Catholicism page):

We Reformed Christians also prayer [sic] for the salvation of those within the chuch [sic] that are not saved: those who profess Christ's name with their tongue, while their heart is far from him. One group that particularly concerns us is the Roman Catholic Church, because her official teachings point people away from the pure gospel message:

Repent of your sins and trust in Christ alone for salvation.

. . . Some Roman Catholics will still call us names like "anti-Catholic" (see this example). . . .

May God bring to faith and repentance all those who have not repented and trusted in Christ alone, whether they be hypocrites in our midst, Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Ebionites, Gnostics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, or Satanists.

Oops, TAO forgot to include child molesters, terrorists, Unitarians, tax evaders, and car thieves. Even the seven posts currently listed under Arminianism (one of the favorite whipping boys of Calvinists) don't get the high honor of being classified under "Ignorance". Nope, that is reserved for Dave Armstrong alone!

Remember, this is the guy who raved, "Notice that Steve Ray has taken the 'label "anti-Catholic" rather than debate sensibly' page from Dave Armstrong's book.' Then in the very same post he ranted:

Yes, Steve Ray hates James White - that's easy enough to see. It's also easy to see why Steve Ray hates James White, and that is because Dr. White preaches the Truth and exposes the errors and delusions of Rome.

May we all be labelled and despised by those who hate the truth, but May God be praised whose servants we are, for whose sake we endure these things, To God be the Glory!

Yes, glory to God for the pious, intelligent, serious Christian folks like TAO. The remnant of the one true church lives on! With love like this being shown (Jn 17:20-26; 1 Cor 13:1-3), the world will certainly know that Jesus is Lord and Savior, won't it?

Fallacious Calvinist Arguments For Total Depravity: Does Romans 1 Apply Universally to Fallen Man?

Portrait of John Calvin, by Titian


For background, see my paper, The Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity and Romans 3:10-11 ("None is Righteous . . . No One Seeks For God"): Reply to James White (+ Discussion)

* * * * *

The paper above dealt with Romans 3 and also Romans 2. The former was dealt with at great length, including an examination of the OT texts that Paul cited. The treatment of Romans 2 was shorter, and so I shall cite it here:

Paul doesn't teach, in context, that absolutely all unregenerated men know that God exist but deny Him anyway, for in the very next chapter (and the chapter right before our text under consideration): Romans 2, he talks about "righteous" people who can do "good" and who are capable of "well-doing" even without the Law, let alone the gospel of Jesus Christ:

6: For he will render to every man according to his works:
7: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

10 . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

13: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14: When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15: They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
16: on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

26: So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27: Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.

How fascinating. All of this is about Gentiles who don't even have the law. They haven't heard the gospel at all. The New Testament has not yet been out together. They (obviously) don't yet have the benefit of Romans itself. Paul never says that they have heard the gospel. James White would probably say they are unregenerate, since he seems to think (from what I can tell) that one must hear the gospel and accept it in order to be regenerated and justified. These people have not that advantage at all. Therefore, according to White, they could not possibly be capable of any spiritually good thing. Yet look at all the words Paul uses to describe them:

. . . by patience in well-doing . . . [receive] eternal life; . . . every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. . . . do by nature what the law requires, . . . what the law requires is written on their hearts, . . . a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, . . . those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law . . ."

Needless to say, this doesn't fit very well at all with White's [Calvinist] theology.

Romans 2 and 3 are the immediate context of Romans 1. One discovers that they do not teach Calvinist theology at all, when closely examined (nor does the famous Romans 9, for that matter). Nuances and qualifications are present that mitigate against the Calvinist application of descriptions to all men whatsoever. Calvinists usually choose to ignore or rationalize away passages that don't fit into their man-made schema.

Once we approach Romans 1 (actually Romans 1:18-32 and the conclusion of this "unit of thought": up through 2:10), we have to determine if it, too, makes such qualifications (thus undercutting the Calvinist "co-opting" of the passage) or if it teaches that all men fall prey to the characteristics described therein. Here is the entire passage (RSV):

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
[19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them

[1] Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.
[2] We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things.
[3] Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?
[4] Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
[5] But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
[6] For he will render to every man according to his works:
[7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
[8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
[9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
[10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

John Calvin, in his Commentaries (verse 18 of this passage), wrote (emphases added):

And he brings, as the first proof of condemnation, the fact, — that though the structure of the world, and the most beautiful arrangement of the elements, ought to have induced man to glorify God, yet no one discharged his proper duty: it hence appears that all were guilty of sacrilege, and of wicked and abominable ingratitude.

. . . And then, all the impiety of men is to be taken, by a figure in language, as meaning “the impiety of all men,” or, the impiety of which all men are guilty.

Calvin provides a remarkable example of eisegesis (reading into Scripture something that isn't there) and of illogical thinking, in the last sentence. To illustrate the logical sleight-of-hand, suppose we use a similar example, following the language of the RSV, which Calvin, in effect, modifies in the following fashion:

Real Bible

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

Calvin's Calvinist Tradition of Men Eisegeted Version

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ungodliness and wickedness of all men, all of whom by their wickedness suppress the truth.

See how the meaning changes? Now, for our analogy, picture four young siblings who were left alone for a minute in one of their rooms. Their father comes back, only to find a fairly expensive lamp broken. In fact, it was broken by two of them, when they were wrestling and bumped into the lamp. When asked who did the dirty deed, all denied having done it. Thus, two of them were lying and two were telling the truth. Let's do an analogy to the above passage:

The wrath of the father is revealed against all lamp-breaking and mischievousness of [the particular] children who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

The wrath of the father is revealed against lamp-breaking and mischievousness of all his children who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

The first is a true statement with regard to these children: two of whom were guilty and two of whom were not. The second is a falsehood because it presupposes that all four children were guilty, when in fact, only two were. I know how Calvinists think and reason. They will immediately object that I have smuggled in a false view that not all men are fallen (as exemplified by the two innocent children). But that was not the intention of the analogy.

Besides the fact that Catholics and Arminian Protestants agree with Calvinists that all men are fallen (as far as that goes) and that no one is "innocent" (with the lone exception among creatures, of Mary, and that by a special supernatural act of prevention from God, lest she inevitably be fallen too), the goal of the analogy was to illustrate how changing the syntactical structure or grammar of a passage can massively change its meaning.

Calvin is clearly engaging in circular reasoning and eisegesis. He came to Romans 1 with his theology already in place, and he read into it to make it teach accordingly. But what he does is not in the text itself. Why this is can be examined in several other ways. I shall contend in due course that it is impossible to interpret this passage in its entirety (i.e., the cited portion above) in accordance with the Calvinist view that it applies to all men. And it's not all that difficult to prove this, in context.

Remember, as we go through this exposition, that for Calvin and Calvinists, the passage is referring to the mass of unregenerate, fallen men: the entire human race, since we are all guilty and fallen. The latter clause is denied by virtually no Christian communion (with a few exceptions; e.g., Zwingli, and the Church[es] of Christ denomination). But being fallen and doing particular sinful acts of wickedness are two different things.

The first argument one could put forth is so elegantly simple (though a bit subtle) that it could easily be overlooked (and Calvinists, with their logically circular presuppositional epistemology, are notorious for doing just that):

1) If Paul is referring to fallen man en masse, then he must be referring to all men after Adam and Eve (including the fallen Adam and Eve), since they all would be in this totally depraved, fallen state after the first human couple.

2) In other words, the passage cannot describe post-Adam and Eve man as having been in one state and then having descended into the fallen state (i.e., the totally depraved state of Calvinism's fancy), because that was already a fait accompli. That sad progression of events had already occurred.

The task remains, then, to determine whether the passage suggests any progression, which is impossible by the nature of things, if it is supposed that it is referring to fallen man throughout, or whether it is discussing something other than man's fallenness (i.e., particular acts of wickedness and tendencies of many men, but not all men, as fallen, depraved creatures).

I agree with the Calvinist that all men indeed know that God exists (though this knowledge is sometimes very buried in subconscious layers). I have argued this in many papers. That is indeed a statement that can apply to all men, without exception. Verse 20 is such a generalized statement, and can be properly interpreted in this way, I think. With verse 21, however, Paul starts discussing actual, particular acts:

for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.

Now, is this true of absolutely all men (fallen man)? It seems to me that if this is about fallen man per se, then it couldn't be about post-Adam and Eve man, because we see a progression into fallenness. "Senseless minds" being "darkened" sounds exactly like the depravity that the Calvinist asserts of all fallen men. So it is a vicious logical circle, because this text is talking about human beings who would already have fallen, as descendants of Adam and Eve. Therefore they can't fall again. If one falls into a pit that one can't possibly get out of, then likewise it is impossible to again fall into it. One is already there, and for good.

How do we know that? It's rather simple:

1) Verse 23 says that they worshiped images (idolatry). Adam and Eve didn't do this.

2) Verses 26 and 27 describe homosexual acts. That doesn't apply to Adam and Eve, either, and in fact, was impossible because it requires two men or two women!

3) v. 28: "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct." This also reads (for a Calvinist) like a description of total depravity. Calvin seems to strongly imply this in his commentary:

There is an evident comparison to be observed in these words, by which is strikingly set forth the just relation between sin and punishment. As they chose not to continue in the knowledge of God, which alone guides our minds to true wisdom, the Lord gave them a perverted mind, which can choose nothing that is right.

It is the inability to choose anything that is right which is precisely the hallmark of unregenerate, fallen man. They already had this characteristic, as part of the fallen human race. Therefore, it makes no sense for the text to describe post-fallen man as falling. Ergo: the text must not be referring to fallen man en masse (as if all men do these things), but to examples of widespread wickedness and actual sin, not original. Again, it is very simple, yet somewhat subtle as well.

Therefore, the passage cannot be about fallen man because it gives illustrations of "falling" that make no sense if the passage is supposedly about fallen man. If these people are already fallen, they can't be described as falling again. Calvin (still for v. 28) qualifies slightly, so as to make sense of the text and achieve some semblance of logical non-circularity:

As he had hitherto referred only to one instance of abomination, which prevailed indeed among many, but was not common to all, he begins here to enumerate vices from which none could be found free: for though every vice, as it has been said, did not appear in each individual, yet all were guilty of some vices, so that every one might separately be accused of manifest depravity.

4) V. 29: "Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips," This has to be after Adam and Eve, since the first murder was Cain killing Abel, after the fall.

5) V. 30: "disobedient to parents". Adam and Eve had no parents.

A second argument proceeds as follows:

1) Assume for the sake of argument that Romans is about fallen man en masse.

2) The Calvinist argument will contend that Paul switches back to talking to the Roman Christians in Romans 2 (at some point in that chapter).

3) But the phrase "O Man" of 2:1 implies a continuation of the generalizations about sinful man, as seen in the use of "men" (1:18) and the general "they" and "them" (referring back to this [fallen or example of a wicked] "man") throughout Romans 1.

4) 2:2 and 2:3 speak of judgment of the same "O Man" (2:3). So these two verses are still talking about fallen, unregenerate man.

5) Yet 2:4 states: "Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?"

6) According to Calvinism, the unregenerate, totally depraved man, who is spoken of as being judged in 2:2-3 is never intended by God to repent unto salvation, because of their belief in Limited Atonement: Jesus died only for the elect, and only they have been chosen by God from the foundation of the world. The others are inexorably damned by God's foreordained choice of not electing them to salvation. Therefore, 2:4 would be a contradiction to what came immediately before and after. "Repentance" should not be applied to these unregenerate, wicked men at all. It is meaningless in the Calvinist paradigm. It's another "Catholic verse"!

7) V. 5 reiterates that the non-elect, unregenerate man was being discussed in 2:1-4: "But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed."

8) Paul then goes on to explain that people are judged in the end by their works (I have found no less than 50 such passages, to the exclusion of "faith alone"), so that the ones described earlier who committed all these evil deeds, are obviously among the damned, according to the thrust of the entire passage here considered. So, why, then, "repentance" used in reference to them, in verse 2:4, when this is a meaningless concept for the damned, according to Calvinism and Limited Atonement?

9) Therefore, we conclude the contrary: that the passage is not about fallen man or unregenerate man alone, but about a generalized catalogue of human sins, with the "moral" being that those who commit such sins and do not cease will tend to be the ones who are damned in the end.

A third argument is a lexical one concerning the Greek word ago (lead) from Romans 2:4: "Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" This is Strong's word #71. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon describes it in this particular usage: "to lead, guide, direct: Jn x. 16." God is leading the person to repent and be saved. According to Calvinism, such leading is inexorable. That is the "U" in TULIP: unconditional election. If God wants to lead someone, they will be saved, and if God wants to pass over the next person, they will be damned. That's all there is to it. The Amplified Bible brings out the shades of meaning inherent in this passage:

Or are you [so blind as to] trifle with and presume upon and despise and underestimate the wealth of His kindness and forbearance and long-suffering patience? Are you unmindful or actually ignorant [of the fact] that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repent (to change your mind and inner man to accept God's will)?

So here is the Apostle Paul speaking hypothetically to the damned, fallen "man" and bringing up the notion of being led to repentance. Why, if there is no chance whatsoever of this person being saved? It doesn't fit. It's a square peg in a round hole. The Calvinist God doesn't "talk" like this to the damned. In the very next verse Paul goes right back to saying they will be damned. But Thayer compares the use here of ago, to John 10:16:

And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring (ago) them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

This is more like Calvinism! God "brings" them and they come; no doubt about it. Calvinists love John 10:14, too, because this is talking about the elect: "I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me." But Romans 2:4 is just stuck in the middle of all this fallen man gloom and doom. God is unable to lead these sinners by His kindness, to repentance. It makes no sense: not within the tradition-of-men paradigm of Calvinism. Therefore, the Calvinist interpretation of this passage, as exemplified by John Calvin's exegesis (if one can give it that worthy title), is implausible and incoherent, on the three grounds I have laid out.

The triumphant Romans 8:14 is another use of ago:

Romans 8:14-16 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, (cf. also Heb 2:10: "bringing")

Election! Catholics don't deny election itself, or even predestination of the elect; we only deny predestination of the damned, and the notion that any human cooperation whatsoever (derisively called synergism by Calvinists) is somehow Pelagian and a detraction from the glory of God.

The entire passage thus considered doesn't coherently fit into a Calvinist paradigm at all, but it is perfectly consistent with a scenario not dealing with fallen man en masse, but rather, the sins of men that we can observe, with the final damnation of those who do not repent (back to 2:4 again!). God hasn't predestined anyone to damnation. It is their choice. God gives grace enough for any man to be saved a million times over. But some reject this grace, just as the fallen angels did, even though they were with God, and so they are damned.

I think these arguments are not absolutely airtight (I already have in my mind some possible ways they could be defeated), but I think I am onto something fruitful, which could be refined and developed with more thought and study. It's a preliminary argument, as far as I am concerned. But it has great potential, in my opinion.

Fun Night Out With Friends (Dr. Ray Guarendi, Dr. Stan Williams)

Pam Williams, [office manager Deb] & Darrin Davis, Dave Armstrong, Dr. Ray Guarendi, Judy Armstrong, and Dr. Stan Williams: 9 April 2008

Last night, my wife Judy and I attended one of the always delightfully funny and insightful talks by Dr. Ray Guarendi: noted Catholic talk show host, psychologist, and expert on family and child-rearing issues (also, sometimes apologist). I am on the staff of Nineveh's Crossing, run by filmmaker Dr. Stan Williams, as apologetic advisor.

Nineveh's Crossing is the distributor of Dr. Ray's DVD's. I authored (with some editing additions by Stan and Pam) the study guide for the DVD / EWTN series What Catholics Really Believe. We had great fellowship afterwards at a cool restaurant (as we heard periodic cell phone reports about our six-year-old daughter possibly about to throw up -- alas, she never did, though).

Just missed getting my new, stylish glasses in the picture: I go pick them up tomorrow. Maybe we'll do some more "official portrait" pictures soon, with my new suit and hat too!

The inimitable part stand-up comedian, part "Catholic James Dobson" Dr. Ray, delivering a talk to a predominantly "estrogen-American" audience (his term!) about "how to be a good parent"

Here's the better half 'n' I at the Nineveh's Crossing 2007 Christmas staff party, too

Reflections on Christian Unity and Some Common Ground Between Catholics and Protestants (Particularly, Good Works)

These are some comments of mine that were brought on by various discussions on the CHNI board. I thought they were worth s