An Exercise in Ambiguity From Jimmy Akin

Over on the Envoy boards, it was asked:

In Jimmy Akin's article explaining Exsurge Domine in light of Papal Infallibility, he makes the following comment: "One can speculate which censure might be applied to the proposition that using the death penalty for heresy is contrary to the will of the Spirit (a view Luther himself later repudiated)." What is the reference to Luther's repudiation that Jimmy mentions?

Luther originally rejected the notion of the death penalty. Later on, Luther saw public blasphemy and sedition as two offenses that should be reprimanded. The death penalty may be invoked in certain instances.

But more interesting is the article from Jimmy Akin: Identifying Infallible Statements. For those of you engaging Roman Catholic apologetics, this is a good read to see what sort of logical hoops one must jump through when tackling this subject.

Akin goes through the papal bull Exsurge Domine, the bull condemning Luther's teachings. Akin seeminlgy works hard to interpret the document to not mean anything specific. Akin argues:

1) Luther was not condemned for violating infallibly defined dogmas.

2) Luther was condemned by a whole series of propositions in globo. These propositions were [1] heretical or [2] scandalous or [3] false or [4] offensive to pious ears or [5] seductive of simple minds and [6] in opposition to Catholic truth. The Pope doesn't say which proposition holds which characteristic. The Latin of Exsurge Domine makes it clear one cannot determine the kind of censure being applied to the individual propositions.

3)One cannot even infer that the pontiff’s mind was that all of the propositions were false. The censures "heretical" and "false" both imply falsity, but "scandalous," "offensive to pious ears," and "seductive of simple minds" do not.

4) One can only speculate which censure should be applied to each proposition.

If I recall correctly, Exsurge Domine said that the Pope could, "without any further citation or delay, proceed against [Luther] to his condemnation and damnation..." The bull condemns 41 errors in Luther's writings, calling him to recant withing 60 days or be excommunicated, and decrees his writings should be burned. If ever I had to pick a lawyer to represent Luther, I would've picked Jimmy Akin.

The Magisterium: Luther, we condemned you via the reasons put forth in Exsurge Domine.

Akin: Objection! Exsurge Domine was not an infallible bull, nor did Luther violate any infallible dogma.

The Magisterium: Luther, your writings are heretical or scandalous or false or offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds and in opposition to Catholic truth.

Akin: Objection! Exsurge Domine doesn't say which is which, so it can't be applied to my client, and the document doesn't even infer all Luther's writings condemned are false. In fact you haven't specified anything, but have only put forth non-infallible vague statements about my client's guilt. If this doesn't make sense to you, you can call a staff apologist at Catholic Answers for further information.

Jimmy Akin Delivers The Good News

Here a short mp3 clip from Catholic Answers: Jimmy Akin Delivers The Good News. I highlighted this clip just to point out that I consider this a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

Luther: "I have indicated in a variety of ways that the Christian man must believe for a certainty that he is in a state of divine grace, and that he has the cry of the Holy Spirit in his heart, especially when he is performing his proper function, which is to confess or to suffer for confessing. I did this in order that you might utterly repudiate the wicked idea of the entire kingdom of the pope, the teaching that a Christian man must be uncertain about the grace of God toward him. If this opinion stands, then Christ is completely useless. For whoever doubts the grace of God toward him this way must necessarily doubt the promises of God and therefore the will of God, as well as the birth, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. There is no greater blasphemy against God than to deny the promises of God and God Himself, Christ, etc" [LW 26:385].

"Let us thank God, therefore, that we have been delivered from this monster of uncertainty and that now we can believe for a certainty that the Holy Spirit is crying and issuing that sigh too deep for words in our hearts. And this is our foundation: The Gospel commands us to look, not at our own good deeds or perfection but at God Himself as He promises, and at Christ Himself, the Mediator. By contrast the pope commands us to look, not at God as He promises, not at Christ our High Priest, but at our own works and merits. From the latter course, doubt and despair necessarily follow; but from the former, certainty and the joy of the Spirit. For I am clinging to God, who cannot lie. He says: “I am giving My own Son into death, so that by His blood He might redeem you from sin and death.” Here I cannot have any doubts, unless I want to deny God altogether. And this is the reason why our theology is certain: it snatches us away from ourselves and places us outside ourselves, so that we do not depend on our own strength, conscience, experience, person, or works but depend on that which is outside ourselves, that is, on the promise and truth of God, which cannot deceive. The pope does not know this; therefore he and his furies have the wicked notion that no one, not even those who are righteous and wise, can know whether he is worthy of love. But if they are righteous and wise, they surely know that they are loved by God; otherwise they are not righteous and wise" [LW 26:386].

Scott Windsor can't make up his mind

Scott Windsor says:

You misrepresent the office of the bishop. Each office is NOT infallible in and of itself. They DO have apostolic authority to correct me if I have misrepresented Catholic teaching myself - but a single bishop has not the charism of infallibility, save the Bishop of Rome, and he utilizes that VERY judiciously.

Well, yes, so judiciously as to be unrecognisable.

Anyway, while he's been avoiding the onus of submitting all of his work to the Magisterium (whom he apparently, carelessly equates with his local bishop) like the plague as well as blissfully ignoring the implications of receiving a brush-off from them, he's pursued the following line of argumentation over at his blog, and I'd like to know why.

He'd asked me to whom I'm submitted. I told him the elders of my church (my Southern Babdist church is elder-led). Follow the excerpts down the page.
SW: So, your answer is that you are submissive to the elders of your church - to whom do they submit to (sic)?
ME: My elders are in submission to the Holy Spirit Who expresses Himself thru the Word of God.
SW: I see, so your elders are their own little magisterium.
ME: My elders don't think they're infallible. They don't think they're descended directly via "apostolic succession" from Peter. They're not headed by a Pope who can speak ex cathedra whenever he feels like declaring something he said in the past at some point to have been an infallible statement, in retrospect. They are subject to Scripture and teach what it says. There are quite a few large differences. You should really know better, given how long you've been at this.
SW: That's sad, because in the Church which Jesus built, his bishops were indeed given the authority to bind or loose whatsoever they chose, and if it were bound on Earth, then it was also bound in Heaven. Since nothing fallible can logically be bound in Heaven, then this authority had to be infallible authority. Furthermore, this is part of what Jesus was sent to do (or else why do it?) and Jesus said "As the Father sent Me, I also send you." If the Apostles then did not pass on this authority which Jesus passed on to them - then they would have failed the Master right from the beginning. So the first bishops were given this infallible authority and by Jesus' Word, they too - being sent as He was sent - had to pass on this authority, which they did. So, if your elders were True Leaders of His Church, then they would have to have infallible authority, without it - they are just impostors, wolves dressed in sheeps clothing - to fool even the elect.
Me: So you admit that your original assertion was wrong - that my elders are their own little Magisterium. Good, we're getting somewhere. The decent thing to do would be to withdraw that statement, sir. (He didn't.)
SW: You brought up the non-infallibility of your elders, I responded that it was a pity, since Jesus established the True Church with "overseers" (bishops) who indeed had this authority.

Now, contrast that line of commentary with what he said most recently, quoted at the top. Which one is right? One can only wish Mr. Windsor could keep track of his arguments, to say nothing of my own.

Windsor's treatment of Ephesians 2:8-10

Scott Windsor's more recent post on the question of Ephesians 2 is meant to be a response to some interaction we've had about this post I did some time ago. Let's see how it's gone so far.

Rhology: Notice how, again, "works" appears TWICE in the psg. You're proposing that "not as a result of works" = works of the OT Law, while "created in Christ Jesus for good works" is something totally different? Even though they appear one sentence of each other?"
--sw: Yes, but not absolutely. "Works of the Law" CAN be "good works" if one is in the State of Grace FIRST.

This is applying an RC gloss after the fact. Where does the Eph 2 psg give us that idea?
And it doesn't answer the question I've raised. Once again:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Just for ease of understanding, so we're all on the same page, this is the problem I'm contending Mr Windsor encounters here:

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works of the OT Law, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works of the OT Law, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

If this is inaccurate, why? Show me why from the text.
You had said: It is a command to perform "good works" and the context is specifically opposing 'works of the Law.' and You are mixing "good works" with "works of the Law" again.

It is your position that mixes the two, not mine. In my view, "works" in Eph 2:9-10 refers to any activity that one might otherwise expect to be meritorious towards one's good standing with God, something that God would want us to do. Said works don't save us - they are for those who are "created in Christ Jesus" (ie, born again believers) to do. Not in your view. In your view, you make an arbitrary distinction and make the first "works" into "works of the OT Law". So, why not the 2nd "good works"? You yourself said:

And this fact is made crystal clear by verse 15: 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace...

So why isn't the 2nd "works" also "works of the OT Law"? You're arguing that the OT Law is in the context, after all. We need to get this question answered clearly before we go anywhere else.

Catholic Answers on Luther and the Real Presence

Over the years I've come across some Roman Catholics using Luther's views on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in two similar ways:

1.Luther's view is proof for the legitimacy the Roman Catholic view: Roman Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, so did Luther.

2.Many Protestants don't believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but Luther did.

The goal is to show Protestants that it's reasonable, biblical, and Roman to believe in the the real presence. If the most famous Reformer believed in it, so should all Protestants.

The problem though with Roman Catholics using Luther's view is that it typically ignores the differences with the Roman view. Luther came to reject transubstantiation as well as the sacrifice of the mass. Rejecting these is no little difference.

I was very pleased to hear the following explanation of this from Catholic apologist Tim Staples:

Tim Staples on Luther and the Real Presence

Staples doesn't try to place Luther on the Roman Catholic side. He points out the differences between Rome and Luther are essential and radical differences. Staples also declares "Lutherans" aren't actually a church.

I'm so used to Luther being used as a propaganda tool, that I almost couldn't believe what I was hearing while listening to Staples.

"The body and blood of Christ are distributed under the bread and wine in the Sacrament, that is, bread and wine are present as well as body and blood. The bread and wine are not changed into body and blood- as the Roman Catholic Church teaches- but are in a mysterious way united with the body and blood. In other words, we receive both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament" [An Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther's Small Catechism (Columbus: The Wartburg Press, 1947), pp. 180-181].

Seen Scott Windsor's imprimatur?

Scott Windsor has responded to some of our recent interactions on his blog, in two parts. I'll address this first part here and then go on to the other post later.

It was YOU who referred to the Eph. 2 post

Yes, that's what's commonly called an "example". An "illustration". I apologise for using a concept that's apparently unfamiliar to you.
My question related to that post was very, very specific. You then responded to the Eph 2 post itself, which is not what I asked about. That is what I mean by your failure to follow the line of argumentation, and then you project your failure onto me and accuse me of shotgunning and partaking with Satan. Again, knock yourself out.


Since when does a "boldfaced word" indicate an internal critique? Boldfaced words mean emphasis.

Sigh. The bold word indicates a critique. If you weren't so busy acting offended, you might remember that I've already explained this to you.
-Here's the original comment from me.
-Mr Windsor's is right after, where he says: "Your use of "Romanist" in a truly bigoted fashion (related to another thread going on here and on my blog too as well as White's) is noted...but even make sure we take note by using bold text?"
-My next comment explains: "I put "from Romanists" in bold b/c I was trying to help you understand what I'd said. It appeared you hadn't followed that I was noting an inconsistency between what you'd said and what *other* ppl have said many times in the past."
-Mr Windsor ignores my explanation and offers this: "For example, if I were using a term like "Prottie" here - and someone expressed to ME that it was a bit of a bigoted term - I would respect them and refrain from further use - I would not go on and not only use it, but bold face it as well!"
-I responded in the next comment: "And again (see how boldface imparts emphasis?), I bolded "Romanist" to try to be helpful and direct attention to my meaning." And then I even explained it AGAIN: "Thus you are showing that you care not for the argument that *OTHER PEOPLE* have often made *IN THE PAST* here on this blog, that private, individual interpretation is useless. That is the extent of my point here."
-Mr Windsor seems finally to get it: "I can't speak for "*OTHER PEOPLE*" - but as for me, the only times I would have to be concerned about "private interpretation" is if I am interpreting something contrary to an already defined teaching"

If only you'd kept right on that train of thought, but no, it's apparently more amusing to vilify me. Whatever, have fun with that.



As I pointed out, there were at least 5 different topics among those 8 questions.

Yes, b/c YOU RESPONDED TO THE EPH 2 POST, Mr Windsor. Sauce for the goose and all that.
And there aren't 5 diff topics. They're all directed at taking your comment that "works" in Eph 2 refers to "works of the OT Law", so I was asking you if you attempt to fulfill the OT Law since Eph 2:10 says we're created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Since "works" = "works of the OT Law", it should be obvious to any reader that, if you believe that, you'd better get right on top of obeying the OT Law!
I note in passing that you've never put fwd any answer beyond "Christ fulfilled the OT Law for us"...as if you completely forgot the original context of the question - Eph 2. It's yet another thread of the argument you've lost track of, but I'll look at your other post on that topic.


Question 4 was asking about my sons (a personal question).

Seriously? Asking whether you fulfilled the circumcision commandments in the OT Law for your sons is "a personal question"?


5) Question 7 asked about graven images...which is wholly a different subject

Oh, the OT Law doesn't deal with graven images? Not even in, say, the 10 Commandments? Like the 2nd one?
Deut 7:5, 25, 12:3 29:17; Num 33:52; Lev 26:30? Aren't those psgs in the OT Law too?


Vague references to entire postings or entire threads of discussion don't cut it as documentation.

I told you where to see a couple of examples. You know, as an apologist you're not all that helpful. Don't you ever answer hypotheticals? It's not like it's not a specific hypothetical.


It sure sounds like St. Jerome was unilaterally acting in the quote you provided. Did he consult the elders of that congregation before acting? Or, did he just walk in and start ripping things down? Did he consult with the local bishop? Did he consult with ANYONE?

(You're shotgunning again, I note. I brought this up as an EXAMPLE, and you're taking it far afield, if we go by your own standard.)
Why would he consult the elders of a wrongdoing congregation?
Maybe he was very, very certain that such a thing was wrong and acted to communicate its wrongness to that church? Maybe he had consulted with the bishop. And wait a sec, why would he need to consult with the local bishop? I thought Christians and especially bishops throughout history have been in agreement about such important things as images. No doubt he agreed with you and knew his own bishop said images in church are a no-go, and thus figured the local bishop would agree, since bishops in Christ's church bind and loose and all that and have all that unity you like to talk about so often.


There may be some around, but I don't "use them" in "worship."

Let the reader judge whether the actions performed by RCs before their images is "using them" in "worship".

One can find SOME of the defined teachings of the RCC in many places. Others are said to be defined but are not. Some, it would be nice if they were, but they're not, such as an infallible list of infall teachings, a list of the infallibly-interpreted Scr psgs, etc.
But for the 3rd time, you say on the one hand that it's the reader's responsibility to figure it out, and on the other decry this individual interpretation if it differs from the RCC's teachings. How can we know who's right here?
IOW, you're asking me to act like a Protestant. It's really weird.
How about you actually exercise some of this humility you claim and submit ALL your work to the Magisterium for the imprimatur? What's so wrong with that request?


Catholic apologists are used to help explain what the Magisterium ...REALLY teaches as opposed to anti-Catholic propaganda. (source)

And why precisely can't the Magisterium take care of that? The Pope? Is he too busy making official visits to Hugo Chávez and kissing Qur'ans to pitch in?

Anyway, the main point of this whole thing is that Mr Windsor apparently wants everyone to take his word for it on the question of whether he's submitted to the Magisterium. "Oh don't worry," he says, "I've written to my bishop, and in the past I've had good success getting a response." That's nice, and I'm sure such responses from men who wear such elaborate vestments and who hide and transfer pædophiles and can't decide what to do with obviously pro-baby-murder politicians among their constituents impart warm fuzzies, but from someone who's a little closer to the big-time than an anonymous race-baiting RC commenter like, say, Dozie, I'd like more than his assurance. I mean, I'm supposed to let RCC's dogmatic proclamations bind my conscience on pain of mortal sin (or, on pain of somehow wriggling out from under the virtual panacæa of the concept of "invincible ignorance"), but if Mr Windsor relies on his private interpretation to find out whether his own teachings are thus bound, I feel less motivated to do anything more than that.

Messages from Purgatory

The latest Tan Books newsletter has announced a new book, Hungry Souls: Supernatural Visits, Messages, and Warnings from Purgatory, in celebration of Holy Souls month.

"...Hungry Souls recounts these stories and many others trustworthy, Church-verified accounts of earthly visitations from the dead in Purgatory. Accompanying these accounts are images from the "Museum of Purgatory" in Rome, which contains relics of encounters with the Holy Souls, including numerous evidences of hand prints burned into clothing and books; burn marks that cannot be explained by natural means or duplicated by artificial ones. Riveting!"

You can read more about the "Museum of Purgatory" here. Interestingly, Tan Books still considers purgatory a fire to be suffered, an idea that tends to be downplayed by many RCs today:

"November is the Month of Holy Souls. In our Charity, we must not neglect to pray for these men and women who are ultimately assured of becoming saints, yet suffer in Purgatory’s fire. They have felt the struggles and crosses of this life and still need our prayers to attain their reward..." source

Scott Windsor is cool with private interpretation. Why aren't you?

Mr Windsor, thanks for the time!
I just used the Eph 2 post as an example of what I was trying to bring out back at the Beggars All combox. Just to rundown for those who might not have read all that interaction...

Over here at BA, we make various arguments from the Bible against RC dogma. RCs come along and comment, and one of their principal arguments against our position is "That's just your private interpretation. We have an infallible interpreter, and so we can be sure that what the Magisterium says is the valid interp of the Bible, since she is the church founded by Christ and the gates of Hell won't prevail against her. Since you just have your private fallible interpretation, I don't need to pay attention to your contentions".
He was honest enough to admit, in the 02Nov post, that his apologetic blogging is not submitted to the RCC either (but that he will heretofore make his priest aware of it). I thanked him for his honesty and pointed out that the logical outworking of this fact is that he does not consider this common argument made by other RCs at various times in the past (I am unaware whether Mr Windsor has ever used this ridiculous argument) to be a valid one. I used the Eph 2 post as an example of that, asking Mr Windsor whether he would use that argument to overturn what I'd said in the 2007 post on Eph 2. It looks like the answer is mostly no, but I am a bit quizzical on Mr Windsor's request for specifics (see the end of his post).
Have you really never seen that argument used before? Not even once? Never listened to, for example, any of the many debates that James White has done with RCs over the years, wherein the RC apologists use that argument over and over?
Take a couple of examples, and please know that I am trying to be very specific in my question. I don't want to get into an extended debate on the subject matter itself, but rather on the principle of "he was only speaking as a private theologian/individual, not for the entire Church" nonsense.

"Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort--opposed as they are to our religion--shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge." - Epiphanius (Jerome's Letter 51:9)

"Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under the episcopate of Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:25:6)

"These men [heretics], moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:24:5)

"the law itself exhibits justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence from sensible images" - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 2:18)
"familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 5:5)
"Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:5)

We cite these as evidence against the RC contention that the church has been RCC throughout history. RCs most typically respond with "he was just speaking as a private theologian". Do you consider that a valid response? If so, why, since the question is what the Church has believed throughout history, and isn't that response simple special pleading? If not, can you explain the disunity and fragmentation that this disagreement displays in the ranks of RCC?


Now, on the other topic, your response to my contention with respect to Eph 2, since Paul goes on to mention circumcision, that means that v 10 - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" is a command to perform the works of the Law, correct? Why does not the RCC do so, then? When was the last time you offered a grain offering? Were your sons (if you have any) circumcised on the 8th day? How have you solved the problem that has long vexed the Jewish people, that you don't have a Temple in which to perform the sacrifices? Why isn't Yom Kippur a big, big deal on the RC calendar? Why is it OK (a propos) to bow down to graven images now even though Joshua wouldn't've permitted Jews to bow down to images of the dead (but no doubt sainted) Moses?
And could you please answer another of the original challenges? - our RC friends are saying that justification is at least PARTLY due to works, ie, justification is not by faith alone, in light of your statement No Catholic argues that works of the Law justify. It sounds like you are saying precisely that. Clarification would be appreciated.

ISI Radio Show Off The Air

Dear Fans and Friends of Iron Sharpens Iron,

On November 2, 2009 Chris Arnzen found out that WNYG (the station hosting Iron Sharpens Iron) was sold. The station is currently off the air.

Please keep Chris and the show in your prayers, as he seeks a new station to continue the show.

If you've enjoyed Iron Sharpens Iron over the years, please take a few minutes to send Chris an e-mail and let him know that you're praying for him, and that you hope to hear the show back on the air soon: carnzen@optonline.net.

I'll be keeping the archives available, and I'll post updates as soon as they become available.

Luther's Paradox of the Hidden and Revealed God

Here's a follow-up Luther quote I've been meaning to get to related to my recent entries on Luther and Calvinism. As was pointed out in the recent ISI broadcast, Luther's paradox of the hidden / revealed God sheds much light on his views regarding predestination. Here, in the Bondage of the Will, Luther responds to the charge of Erasmus "Does the good Lord deplore the death of his people, which he himself works in them?”—for this really does seem absurd..."

"...[W]e have to argue in one way about God or the will of God as preached, revealed, offered, and worshiped, and in another way about God as he is not preached, not revealed, not offered, not worshiped. To the extent, therefore, that God hides himself and wills to be unknown to us, it is no business of ours. For here the saying truly applies, “Things above us are no business of ours.”...

God must therefore be left to himself in his own majesty, for in this regard we have nothing to do with him, nor has he willed that we should have anything to do with him. But we have something to do with him insofar as he is clothed and set forth in his Word, through which he offers himself to us and which is the beauty and glory with which the psalmist celebrates him as being clothed. In this regard we say, the good God does not deplore the death of his people which he works in them, but he deplores the death which he finds in his people and desires to remove from them. For it is this that God as he is preached is concerned with, namely, that sin and death should be taken away and we should be saved. For “he sent his word and healed them” [Ps. 107:20]. But God hidden in his majesty neither deplores nor takes away death, but works life, death, and all in all. For there he has not bound himself by his word, but has kept himself free over all things.

Diatribe, however, deceives herself in her ignorance by not making any distinction between God preached and God hidden, that is, between the Word of God and God himself. God does many things that he does not disclose to us in his word; he also wills many things which he does not disclose himself as willing in his word. Thus he does not will the death of a sinner, according to his word; but he wills it according to that inscrutable will of his. It is our business, however, to pay attention to the word and leave that inscrutable will alone, for we must be guided by the word and not by that inscrutable will. After all, who can direct himself by a will completely inscrutable and unknowable? It is enough to know simply that there is a certain inscrutable will in God, and as to what, why, and how far it wills, that is something we have no right whatever to inquire into, hanker after, care about, or meddle with, but only to fear and adore. [LW 33:139-140].

I suggest for those of you pursuing Luther's understanding of predestination, or Luther's similarities with Reformed theology, this type of statement from Luther should serve as the linchpin for correctly interpreting his view. If you pursue Luther's view via this paradox, you will correctly arrive at his view. On the other hand, the bigger question is whether or not those statements about predestination in the Bible are really to be classified with the hidden God.

...and so my 2009 Flu (or something very much like it), appears to be moving on. No fever today, and food looks very enticing again.

Beckwith vs. Windsor

"One of my pet peeves is the intentional overuse of 'Rome,' 'Roman,' 'Romanist,' etc. by Protestant critics of Catholic theology."- Francis Beckwith

"...there truly is nothing wrong with the use of 'Roman' or 'Rome' when dealing with us."- Scott Windsor

Mr. Windsor says as well: "The way I look at it is, if these non-Catholic apologists are trying to be insulting with the use of "Roman," then they are only exposing their ignorance and bigotry."

FWIW, I specifically use the word "Roman" not to be insulting, but because I believe in the Catholic Church, but not the Roman Catholic Church.

Sungenis vs. Shea

"First and foremost, it shows that Shea and his groupies are trying desperately to have the Mosaic covenant perpetuated for the Jews, and thus it shows that they are all in heresy, with Shea as their ring leader." [source]

Sungenis vs. Sippo

"Who are the “highest circles of the Catholic Church”? Obviously, Art [Sippo] does not and cannot point to any official teaching of the Catholic Church that says the Mosaic covenant is not revoked, for there are no such statements."

"Art’s remark that “in the highest circles of the Catholic Church it has been recognized that the Old Covenant from Sinai was never revoked” is, to be honest, very disturbing, if not frightening."

"Since when do we determine Catholic doctrine by a head count of “the highest circles of the Catholic Church” and ignore the dogmatic Tradition passed down to us, especially when some of those “highest circles” are notorious for their liberal and unorthodox views? Art knows what the Tradition says; he knows what Scripture says, but he is apparently ignoring both of them because of some theological sentiment he has for the Jews." [source]

Is anyone else having trouble with blogger doing "cut and paste" in compose mode? It looks like the blogger "new post" template has been revised, and since the revision, it will only paste in "edit html" mode. This is using IE, everything worked fine up until a day or so ago. With Firefox, everything still works normally.

It isn't a problem for this blog, but it makes doing hyper links on the ISI blog very tedious.

Ambrose on Justification

Luther: "Moreover I am not the only one, or even the first, to say that faith alone justifies. Ambrose said it before me, and Augustine and many others" [LW 35:197].

Ambrose: "God chose that man should seek salvation by faith rather than by works, lest any should glory in his deeds and should thereby incur sin."

No, Luther doesn't use this Ambrose quote. But, I've been trying to track down the context of this Ambrose quote, as well as finding out which texts of Ambrose Luther had, and to what he meant. The LW edition, usually footnoting such obscurities, doesn't have a footnote for this point at LW 35:197. Luther was probably referring to Ambrose commenting on Romans 3:28.

I came across an interesting web page: Ambrose on Justification: A Study in the Catholicity of Lutheran Theology. The page is from a Lutheran. The author cites the Ambrose quote as "In ps. 43 enarr. 14; quoted in Dudden II, p. 627". "Dudden" is: F. Holmes Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935), Vol. II.

"ps. 43 enarr. 14" is "Explanations of Twelve Psalms of David (Enarrationes in xii psalmos davidicos) LT: PL 14:963-1238; CSEL 64. The volume contains Ambrose's sermons on Psalm 1, 35-40, 43, 45, 47-48, and 61. The commentary/sermon on Psalm 43 is incomplete, because Ambrose died [source].

The same Ambrose quote is used by a pro-Roman Catholic site. After citing this same quote, the web page goes on to state:

Ambrose would also say: "Without the support of faith good works cannot stand" (On the Duties of the Clergy, 2, 7). That means that with the support of faith, good works can stand. If they can stand, then they certainly do not lead one to boast in himself, they do not lead one to sin. Ambrose has in mind a distinction here between "works" leading us to boast in God and "works" leading us to boast in ourselves. These latter works can never stand, with or without the support of faith.

Phillip Schaff explains the view of Ambrose on justification:

"As to justification, St. Ambrose ascribes the whole work to the Holy Spirit, Who seals us in our hearts, as we receive the outward sign in our bodies. Through the Holy Spirit we receive a share of the grace of adoption. Christ was perfect according to the fulness of His Majesty ; we are perfected by a continual progress in virtue."

Catholic bloggers’ “code of conduct”

Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, didn’t think a Catholic bloggers’ “code of conduct” would accomplish much. [source]

Too bad. A code of conduct would be helpful for such bloggers as Mark Shea (who uses profanity), Art Sippo (who is quite the angry Romanist), Robert Sungenis (for his comments on the Jews), Patrick Madrid ( who posts insults and silliness about Dr. White), Steve Ray (who continually uses Patty Bonds as an apologetic), and DA (who will at times post inflammatory comments , and then retracts them- perhaps with a code of conduct he would have a helpful guideline to avoid such behavior).

On the other hand, more often than not when I read Jimmy Akin's blog, he doesn't appear to need the same guidelines these other professionals do. Maybe Jimmy Akin could write the guidelines he uses out for these other guys... after all, Catholic Answers is the closest thing to a magisterium this side of the Atlantic.

Kook, First Class Biblical Exegete, or Both? The Sungenis Legacy

Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis isn't as popular among his peers as he once was (just ask Mark Shea who referred to him as an "ultra-fringe kook"). Well, at least Sungenis has one fan. Catholic apologist Art Sippo says he's a "first class biblical exegete" and "Catholic Apologist Dr. Robert Sungenis has published a landmark book which in my opinion should be read by anyone who is serious about Catholic Apologetics."

I think it's time for the magisterium to step in and appoint apologists. It would make it much easier if I knew who really to trust as an official source of apologetics.

Remember the Reformation

Click on the title to see a 7 + minute clip of the dramatic black and white film portraying Luther against relics and a false gospel; and proclaiming the true gospel, pointing to Romans 1:17.

Discussion on Sola Scriptura, canon, authority at "Called to Communion"

Photo © HolyLandPhotos.org

The ruins of columns of an ancient Byzantine church in the ancient city of Philadelphia, now called Alashehir, Turkey. The Turks did not live in the modern land what is called "Turkey" today; in the NT days it was Asia Minor, Anatolia, Galatia, Cappodocia, Bythinia, Pontus, Phrygia, and Armenia. The Seljuks Turks first came to Turkey in the east in 1071 and defeated the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert near Van. Then the Ottoman Turks defeated the Byzantines in Contstantinople in 1453 after the many wars and battles of the Crusades period of 1095-1299 and beyond. Notice the Islamic minaret in between the ancient church ruins. Like the church at Ephesus, the church in Philadelphia eventurally left its first love also. ( Revelation 2:4-5) Every generation is responsible for the great commission in their own time. Just because a land had the gospel before in history, does not mean that it should not have the gospel preached again to that same land, because the people are different; different ethnicities, and different generations.

The early church had "quickly deserted Him who called you by His grace" (Galatians 1:6) and eventually, the churches in Revelation chapters 2-3 did the same thing.

Discussion at "Called to Communion":
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/hermeneutics-and-the-authority-of-scripture/

The Called to Communion web-site is a Roman Catholic web-site of (mostly, if not all) former Evangelicals. I had a long discussion/informal debate with them at this article on "Hermeneutics and the Authority of Scripture". It has a whopping 391 comments and is now closed. I entered into the discussion at comment 168. I would appreciate feedback from my fellow Reformed brothers and sisters on my approach.

As we celebrate the Reformation on October 31 this year, we are reminded of several things:

1. Individual churches have later failed in history; and that does not contradict the promise of Matthew 16:18. That even in the Scriptures, at that time in history, individual churches were very quickly drifting away from the truth of the gospel. Galatians 1:6-9

This shows that they can drift and cease to be true churches. God warned all the churches by His warning to the first church there in Revelation 2, Ephesus: "If you don't repent, I am coming in judgment and I will remove your lamp stand, unless you repent." (see Rev. 2:4-5) All the churches in Revelation 2-3 were eventually conquered, first by the Goths, then by Islam. There are a few Eastern Orthodox people left in Izmir ( Smyrna) today, but that is all from those that claim the ancient physical succession. They have a physical building and a claim that goes back to Polycarp; but it is a dead, ritualistic faith. There are others, alive, biblical churches, underground, evangelical, Protestant, in other parts of Turkey; those that have gone to reach out to the Turkish and Kurdish Muslims. Indeed, a claim to faith without the good works of evangelism and missions is a dead faith.

- "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed!" Galatians 1:6-9

2. Sola Scriptura is taught in principle here in Galatians chapter 1. The fact that the apostle Paul considered his letter, by him writing it, and using these words, " . . . so I say to you now . . . " (v. 9) shows that he is communicating in the same way that Jesus did when Jesus said, "have you not read what God said to you?" ( see Matthew 22:31). The Scriptures are "God speaking". Paul considered his letters, as "God speaking", as "God-breathed". (see also I Corinthians 2:13; 4:6; 7:40; and 14:37) That, and along with the fact that this gospel and his apostleship was not from men or humans or by the agency of man" (verse 1), shows that he knew His letters were authoritative and had the God-breathed quality of Scripture. This demonstrates, in principle, that the canon existed before being called "canon", that is, the historical ontological existence of the books of Scripture was at the time of writing (48-70 AD or 48-96 AD) "canon" (which was a measuring rod that eventually meant, "standard", "rule", "principle", "criterion", "law", before it meant "list". See Galatians 6:16; and a textual variant at Philippians 3:16 for this meaning of the Greek word, "kanon".); and was before the human process of the early church of discerning, sifting, and putting all the 27 books "under one cover", so to speak.

Luther says on this text: "Here then is a plain text like a thunderbolt, wherein Paul subjects both himself and an angel from heaven, and all others, doctors, teachers, and masters, to be under the authority of the Scriptures." (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, quoted in Tabletalk Magazine, January, 2009, p. 29.)

"In spite of this emphatic denunciation so many accept the pope as the supreme judge of the Scriptures. “The Church,” they say, “chose only four gospels. The Church might have chosen more. Ergo the Church is above the Gospel.” With equal force one might argue: “I approve the Scriptures. Ergo I am above the Scriptures. John the Baptist confessed Christ. Hence he is above Christ.” Paul subordinates himself, all preachers, all the angels of heaven, everybody to the Sacred Scriptures. We are not the masters, judges, or arbiters, but witnesses, disciples, and confessors of the Scriptures, whether we be pope, Luther, Augustine, Paul, or an angel from heaven." Luther, Galatians, at 1:9, see, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.iv.html

3. Remember Sola Fide, the heart of the gospel. "Alone" (Sola) in the phrase, is the same as "apart from the merit and condition of works". We should celebrate Luther's insight by reminding ourselves of it - this is dramatically illustrated here at Lane's blog with a short clip from the old black and white movie about Luther.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LaneCh#p/search/0/P-wi0kcLLr0

The Roman Catholic Church had drifted from the Scriptures and the truth of the gospel and replaced it with ceremonies, relics, indulgences, prayers to saints and Mary, exalting Mary too much; the treasury of merit, purgatory, baptismal regeneration as the ex opere operato work that causes regeneration and initial justification, mortal vs. venial sin categories of being able to loose real justification; and good works as conditions for regaining and keeping justification, and other "sacramental treadmill" works such as transubstantiation and confession to a priest. The result being that no one could ever be sure they were even justified or saved.

Luther's (~)Calvinism, a Follow Up

I have a few follow up comments on my recent discussion "Did Martin Luther Believe in the Reformed Tulip?"

I received a kind review over on another blog from Marcus McElhaney, of which I'm grateful. I thank everyone who listened, for listening. I had a few points of clarification for one of the issues Marcus raised, as well as some of the comments left here.

As to my material on Luther's Book, The Bondage of The Will, Marcus states, "I agreed with Swan about how he see the book. The one one thing is that i would not say that Luther was paradoxical in that book I thought he was clear." I haven't listened back to the interview, but I don't recall saying that Luther was paradoxical in this book. I recall raising the issue of paradox during my discussion of the hidden vs revealed God. However paradox will always be at the base of Luther's thought on this, and I think if we were to go slowly through the book, we could uncover Luther's use of paradox. Indeed, Luther was clear as to his view, but in working out how to understand the inner workings of predestination, Luther will use paradox.

Jordan points out, "Swan seemed to think that election could be lost" according to Luther. Actually, I recall in the interview saying Luther held God chooses some to be saved and he rejects the others without an apparent reason within them for either choice. He gives faith to one person through the working of His Spirit; and he refuses to give faith to others so that they remain bound in their unbelief. This means an unconditional, eternal predestination both to salvation and to damnation. However, Luther usually attributes such to speculating about the hidden God, which he strongly urges his readers not to do. Luther himself doesn't spend a lot of time doing such. Here I would disagree with R.C. Sproul, whom (if I recall correctly) has stated that Luther spent more time discussing predestination than Calvin did. This is simply not the case.

On the other hand, Luther says things like, "Ye are fallen from grace," must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection."

I admit to not exactly understanding how Luther reconciles this, but then again, I'm thinking in Reformed categories, not Luther's categories. I have a feeling Luther would simply affirm both statements. My studies on these issues concerning Luther were largely influenced by looking into his paradox of the hidden vs. revealed God. As far as I understand his views, they are largely informed and understood via paradox,the rejection of the medieval use of ergo, and embracing the conclusion, nevertheless.

Similarly, as to Luther on irresistible grace, I recall presenting two Luther quotes, and the host Chris Arnzen concluded that Luther denied irresistible grace. I didn't voice my opinion. The problem is, we're sticking Luther in Reformed categories. I think Luther did hold that it’s God’s eternal election and predestination that draw His people to Him. In one of his early Reformation writings he says, "The best and infallible preparation and the only disposition toward grace are the eternal election and predestination of God," and I think I used that quote during the interview. I then followed it up with another quote from Luther, "It is, nevertheless God’s earnest will and purpose, indeed, His command, decreed from eternity, to save all men."

Once again, I think paradox is at work. One of the books that influenced me on understanding Luther's view is Siegbert Becker's The Foolishness of God: The Place of Reason in the Theology of Martin Luther (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1999 (2nd edition). I highly recommend this book for anyone wishing to explore Luther's categories.

"A dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely... I forget everything about Christ and God when I come upon these thoughts and actually get to the point to imagining that God is a rogue. We must stay in the word, in which God is revealed to us and salvation is offered, if we believe him. But in thinking about predestination, we forget God . . However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election."- Martin Luther

As to disputing these issues, that's the thing Luther did with Erasmus, so he wasn't always consistent about this. I think the bottom line that separates Lutherans and Calvinists on this issue is, are these issues to be avoided entirely, or do they deserve to be looking into with care, fear, and a converted heart? I say yes, because the issues aren't hiding in the Bible. They're right out in the open, more than once, on multiple pages. Indeed, one shouldn't go beyond what the Scriptures say, but one shouldn't avoid what the Scriptures say either.