David Waltz has sparked my interest afresh in the quotation allegedly from Luther that Justification is a doctrine upon which the church stands or falls (link to Waltz's article). I agree that the expression may not be Luther but is easily derivable from Luther's teachings.
Waltz has traced it back to Valentin E. Löscher in 1718, but -- with some help from Eberhard Jüngel (link) -- I have traced it back a bit further to my own favorite Theologian, Francis Turretin, who stated, in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology at Tomus II, Locus 16, Question 1, Section 1:
"Luthero dicitur Articulas stantis et cadentis Ecclesiœ"
You can see for yourself:
The image above is from the 1819 printing of Turretin's work, but (of course) Turretin's first edition is much older. The second volume of Turretin's work was published in 1682, which would beat out Löscher. Turretin (at least in the editions I can find) doesn't provide any citation, and it is not clear to me whether Turretin had intended to quote or paraphrase Luther.
I don't have access, at the moment, to a first edition of Turretin's Institutes to verify that the quotation appeared in the original edition. Both Waltz and Jüngel (linked above) provide some interesting bases for the pseudo-quotation or paraphrase. Jüngel notes that previous attempts to definitively track down the quotations origin have proved fruitless.
On the other hand, the Smalcald Articles do suggest that Luther viewed the issue as being a stand-or-fall principle, and so do many other of Luther's writings. The Smalcald Articles provide a good basis for the quotation as a paraphrase when they state:
5] Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered [nor can anything be granted or permitted contrary to the same], even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4:12. And with His stripes we are healed, Is. 53:5. And upon this article all things depend which we teach and practice in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the [whole] world. Therefore, we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt; for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all things gain the victory and suit over us.
P.S. Luthero dicitur means "It was said by Luther." P.P.S. See p. 633 of Volume 2 of Turretin's Institutes in the Giger-Dennison edition, if you wish to see how Giger-Dennison handled this.
I wasn't overly surprised, but I was amused to see that Steve Ray is continuing to endorse William Albrecht (aka GNRHead):
"Here is a picture of me with William Albrecht, a Catholic apologist who can [sic] to the conference to spend some time with me. He is a good guy and a good apologist for the Catholic faith." (source)
Personally, I think William Albrecht is a much more brave apologist for his religion than Steve Ray is. But regardless of what I personally think of Mr. Albrecht's quality as an apologist, these sorts of endorsements from Mr. Ray (and others in the Romanist apologetic community) help to keep Mr. Albrecht on the map as a legitimate target for our criticism as representing his religion in the lay sphere.
Although some people (mostly conservative Romanists) would like you to think that the Roman Catholic Church has only one view on contraceptives, the issue is actually one on which there is a degree of disagreement, as illustrated in the following two articles:
On the "pro" side, Manuel Clemente, Bishop of Porto (link to article).
"Speaking to journalists, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Porto Manuel Clemente said condoms in such cases are 'not only recommendable, they can be ethically obligatory.'"
vs.
On the "con" side, Matthew Bellisario, editor of the "Catholic Champion" web site (link to article)
"Well how does this genius think that AIDS is spread? Does MR Juppe know that it spreads by having sex, and that condoms promote sexual intercourse among people in Africa that have AIDS? Condoms are not 100% effective and the disease is primarily spread by sexual intercourse. Wow, I just wonder how someone like this clown becomes a Prime Minister in any country outside of Wonderland."
***
Obviously, Mr. Bellisario is not making his comment directly to Bishop Clemente, and perhaps he'd be embarrassed to call one of the bishops of his church a "clown" - though he does not hesitate to law on the compliments when it comes to the former prime minister. But leaving aside the bombastic nature of Bellisario's remarks, what we see from this comparison of views is that the typical Romanist apologetic argument that we need Rome to give us unity on issues like contraception (which are not explicitly addressed in Scripture) is wrong as a matter of fact: although Rome provides organizational unity, that organizational unity masks great doctrinal and moral disunity.
The headline of this post is the same as a recent headline in the "Lifestyle" section of MSN (link to article - Caution Inappropriate Subject Matter at Link). The article tries to take a naturalistic approach, focusing essentially on biological explanations.
For example, the article quotes Lisa Diamond, Ph.D., as stating that regarding a woman's desires, "It doesn't appear to be something a woman can control." The article, focusing on these biological explanations, also notes that men seem more "rigid" in these things and women more "fluid."
All this misses the point. The Bible has the answer to why it is that women leave men for other women, and why men leave women for other men. The answer is God's judgment on sin.
Romans 1:25-32 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
How fitting that a society who worships biology, as though biology in itself could provide the answers, is turned over to this perversion of the natural order. God has turned over the minds of this generation to such an extent that these shameful behaviors are no longer the skeleton in the closet, or even an elephant in the living room, but the open talk of all. The article puts it this way, "we've arrived at a moment in the popular culture when it all suddenly seems almost fashionable — or at least, acceptable."
May God forgive us of these sins, and show mercy on us, bringing repentance to our society before it is swallowed up in judgment. There is a solution to this problem: conformity to the Law of God (not out of servile fear, but out of love for our Creator), which may be found in the Holy Scriptures.
I was surprised to find this sentence: "Ehrman is not a debunker of Christianity," in a recent article in the Charlotte Observer (link to article).
On what basis does the author of the article make that claim? On the basis that Ehrman acknowledges that Jesus was an historical figure. Apparently, to be a "debunker of Christianity" today, one must not only be opposed to the miraculous, but also a denier of the most-well attested historical figure of 2000 years ago.
I realize that the Opera Omnia of Cyril of Alexandria (lived from about A.D. 375 to about A.D. 444) may not be the thing you were hoping to find today, but one never knows when one will need to refer to the Greek originals. When that time comes, you should be able to find the relevant work in one of the following five volumes:
There's no plan, right now, for audience participation in this debate, though parts of the debate intersect with an ongoing discussion I have with Jay Dyer (at least I think it is ongoing - Jay may have gone on to other things)(link to Jay Dyer stuff).
Moses Cho at No Mo' Condemnation has a nice quotation from the real Francis Turretin on the absurdities of any doctrine of universal atonement (link). Turretin addresses not only the errors of Arminianism, but also those Amyraldianism with this short identification of four absurdities.
This article (link) suggests that Archbishop Raymond Burke knows where his priorities lie.
Previously, according to the article: "In his remarks, Burke told Terry that American parishioners should press U.S. bishops to withhold the sacrament. 'It is weakening the faith of everyone,' Burke said."
Now, according to the article, "'If I had known what the true purpose of the interview was, I would never have agreed to participate in it,' said Burke, the former St. Louis archbishop."
He continued, "I am deeply sorry for the confusion and hurt which the wrong use of the videotape has caused to anyone, particularly to my brother bishops."
Before my critics say it, I'll say it. Randall Terry is something of a firebrand, and his single issue is the abortion issue. He feels, and seems to be justified in this, that the American bishops are not doing what their church law says they should. He's ticked, he wants blood, and he's (as the Americans would say) "loaded for bear." He had hoped to get Archbishop Burke on his side (against the American bishops) on this issue, presumably in view of Burke's high rank within the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
I am puzzled as to how Burke could not have known of Terry's purpose in the interview: even this blog knew what the purpose of this interview was, and reported it out on March 12, 2008 (link).
Apparently Frank Turk, aka Centuri0n, thinks that engaging in apologetics with those of the Roman Catholic Church is a waste of time (link) and (thinks he) he's got the statistical data to prove it.
With all due respect to the wise Turk, I'm not persuaded by his argument from web traffic. I'll keep on giving an answer for the hope that is within me, trusting in God to bring the increase.
It's not quite a "how to" but the first half of the Dividing Line program for March 24, 2009, provides a good introduction to how we can speak with Jehovah's Witnesses in a productive manner (link).
William Albrecht has responded to a short video (technically it is just audio plus a slideshow) series I did demonstrating the obvious fact that Augustine did not believe that Jesus is bodily present with us today, although the divine presence of Jesus is with us (clip 1 / clip 2)(Albrecht's Response - part 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b).
In this case, I've done a double-whammy - I've posted a video, which I'm embedding below, and I've posted a written response that provides more detail.
As I draw out in my clips, Augustine enunciates essentially the same view as the Reformed churches on the issue of Christ being bodily present in Heaven, but spiritually present here. What is Albrecht's response?
- He argues that the text is not addressing the Eucharist. Of course that is so. As I noted, the only reason he'd address the Eucharist is if there had been people around at the time that held to transubstantiation. Since there were not, it is no surprise he doesn't mention the Eucharist in the passage.
- He argues that all Augustine is saying is that Christ's presence here is "not exactly the same." That's misleading. He says that Christ deprived us of his bodily presence. He says it plain and simple.
- He differentiates between "Christ the person" and "the Eucharistic presence." But the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares:
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."
Thus, it appears that Mr. Albrecht's distinction is invalid within his own church's current theology.
- He argues that the spiritual presence of Christ is (in Augustine) not merely symbolic or figurative. Of course, that's right. As well, the Reformed churches teach that Christ's spiritual presence is real and divine and not merely symbolic and figurative. Apparently, Mr. Albrecht is just unaware of what we believe, even going so far as to claim that I had said that spiritual = symbolic (which, of course, I did not).
- He argues (if I am hearing him right) that the Latin word "spiritalem" is never used by Augustine in his later works to refer to something symbolic. This argument is presumably based on his previous blunder of imagining that I was arguing that Augustine was saying "spiritual" (spiritalem) but meaning "symbolic." Of course, I was not. A bigger problem for Mr. Albrecht is that "spiritalem" (spiritual) presence is the opposite of bodily presence. But - because he is chasing an irrelevant rabbit trail, Mr. Albrecht misses this important point.
- He argues, quite confusedly, that I show my ignorance of the Fathers by asserting that none of them taught transubstantiation. Then he admits that this is not a point of contention. Thus, by his own admission, my knowledge (not my ignorance) of the Fathers is clear.
- He calls pointing out that none of the fathers believed what Trent now requires followers of Rome to believe a "debating tactic." Actually, what it is, is simply an inconvenient fact that apologists for Rome have to dismiss or ignore in order to get people to look away from it, using debating tactics.
- He argues that Augustine believed in a substantial change of the bread and wine by quoting a passage where Augustine says that the bread is Christ's body and the wine is Christ's blood, after the consecration. I had to laugh - this is the same thing one might here from a Reformed minister. It is not a statement of transubstantiation in the least.
I think Mr. Albrecht would be surprised and shocked to discover that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches, almost exactly as Augustine does:
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith says practically the same thing too:
Paragraph 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
Of course, that's nothing remotely like what Rome's catechism (already quoted above) says, but (of course) Augustine also says nothing like what Rome's catechism says.
- Mr. Albrecht tries to argue that Augustine doesn't have to say "transformed" to mean "transformed" in the Latin. Of course, Mr. Albrecht's argument isn't based on anything. I realize that folks who don't know Latin might be confused by the fact that he's throwing it out there, but really he's got nothing. The Latin says just what the English says: after the consecration, the bread is the body and the wine is the blood. There's no unique or even special rules of Latin grammar that are implicated by the sentences, and there is no reason to think that a substantial change is intended when Augustine says it, just as there is no reason to think that a substantial change is intended when a Reformed pastor says it.
- It is mildly amusing to hear Mr. Albrecht emphasizing the word "the" in the phrase "THE word of God," since - assuming Mr. Albrecht knows Latin - Mr. Albrecht should know that the word "the" has no corresponding word in the Latin original. But perhaps this was simply an accidental emphasis on Mr. Albrecht's part.
- Mr. Albrecht then turns to another place where it is said that only the bread that receives the blessing "becomes Christ's body." Again, the Latin examination doesn't show anything that the English doesn't show. There are no unique or special Latin grammatical issues involved, and there is nothing in the sermon to make us conclude that Augustine meant that "becoming" was a change of substance instead of simply a designation.
- In short, in both cases, Augustine's words (whether in English or in Latin) would be perfectly consistent with not only the Reformed view of spiritual presence, but even the more radical view of bare symbolism.
- Mr. Albrecht makes a comment about Augustine being "a Catholic" and those of us who do not follow Rome not being able to "make [Augustine] a Protestant." Mr. Albrecht - again - is missing the point. Augustine was an Early Church Father, not a Protestant or a Roman Catholic. Augustine taught many good things, but he also had errors in his theology. Unlike Roman Catholicism, however, we are under no obligation to make Augustine fit our mold. We don't have to try to make him a "Protestant" but Mr. Albrecht does feel compelled to make him "a Catholic" as he puts it.
- All in all, I feel sorry for Mr. Albrecht. He spent loads of time preparing videos in which he addressed something other than the position I had presented. In his third video he even mentions (around 35 seconds into the video) that we don't say that he means "symbolic" by "spiritual" but then goes on to say that we "pretty much indicate that in their writings." His evidence actually disproves his point - for he provides an example (around 5:45 in the 3rd video) where the term "spiritual" is used specifically as opposed to "corporeal" - i.e. as distinguishing between spirit and body. Similar examples can be found in Mr. Albrecht's 4th video as well.
In a ridiculous mess, pagans in India are complaining about the fact that the Bible commands believers to destroy the places of false worship (link). The errors in the article and in the pagan reaction are legion:
1. The article notes that the translation is "Protestant" and claims that the translation is faulty.
This is not the case. The translation is accurate. It conveys the intended meaning of commanding the destruction of worship groves.
2. The pagans have reacted to the Bible's comments by burning a Roman Catholic cardinal in effigy.
This is inappropriate both because the cardinal isn't responsible for the translation and because the cardinal doesn't represent the religion of the Bible.
3. The Bible society has apologized for the translation.
This is sad. The truth of Scripture must not be compromised. If and when it offends the native religions, that's a good thing.
4. It took the tribes 8 years to notice this issue.
This is also sad. I cannot complain too much, though, because I have done nothing to preach the gospel to those tribes. Nevertheless, their false religion should have been brought to their attention years ago, if possible.
All in all, it is sad sight to see. Yes, the pagan religions of India, both the major religions and the tribal religions are false religions. Their groves ought to be cut down, their idols smashed, and their hearts turned to the unseen God.
I was amazed at the skill exhibited in this very short performance of the "Flight of the Bumblebee" arranged for the piano. Yuja Wang is the pianist.
The musical gifts that God has given to some people are simply amazing. Honestly, I am not 100% sure whether the video is edited or not, the pianist's fingers are moving so quickly and yet accurately. Either way, whether as a feat of musical or video-editing skill, this piece illustrates one of the good gifts God has given us: music.
Although we would expect that Adam could sing, instrumental music was developed in the sixth generation of mankind, around 3500 B.C. or so, by Jubal. Scripture tells us:
Genesis 4:21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
Jubal was the son of Lamech by Adah. Lamech was the son of Enoch: not the Enoch who was translated, but Enoch the son of Cain and Cain's unnamed wife. As you doubtless recall, Cain was Adam's firstborn son.
This musical gift was handed down beyond the flood and became incorporated into the temple worship. You will recall that David and all of Israel played before the Lord with such instruments. As well, this can be found in Psalm 33:
Psalm 33:2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.
May we glorify Him with this gift!
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: As you can see from the URL of this post, I initially ascribed this tune to the wrong composer. That has been fixed, thanks o an attentive reader who chose to remain anonymous.
Further to my last post about the BSB digitization project, one may recall an informal debate that I conducted with Dave Armstrong last January on the issue of a spurious quotation attributed to Luther. The full work of that slanderer Cochlaeus, from which the quotation originated, has been digitized and is available freely on-line, though one will have to navigate some German menus to download it (link).
At least, I think it is good news. Todd at Historical Theoblogy has a report on a digitization project that aims to digitize 100,000 volumes: all the extant volumes that were published in Germany (well, in the German-speaking lands) in the 16th century (link to report). Obviously, a significant percentage of these works will be German or Latin. Nevertheless, it represents a treasure trove, especially for those interested in things related to Martin Luther.
In this clip, I discuss an instance where John Martignoni demonstrates the error of sola ecclesia. As a caveat, I'm sure not everyone within Roman Catholicism holds to these sort of extreme views, so perhaps this discussion is limited in its value, since it does not address those that do not go as far as Marignoni. Nevertheless, his position is not a rare one.
I found an article complaining that the Vatican edited the remarks of the pope that were given during his recent visit to Africa (link). I was immediately reminded of this amusing clip (link). No doubt the remarks were edited for the perfectly innocent reason of reflecting "a version which represents the [pope's] views as he would, on reflection, have liked them to be."
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: In fairness, it looks like the American's White House is run by the same folks who work at the Vatican (link). Did they know there was a video? (one wonders)
Paul Manata at Triablogue has a fascinating post on Determined Choices (link). He provides a reasonably concise explanation of how God's declaration that he decides when we die (John 14:5) and the fact that people sometimes choose to kill themselves are compatible, not contradictory. Thus, he reasonably concludes that the nature of free will is at it is described in Calvinism.
Reformed Apologist | Male | Adult | Bible-Believing | 5 Solas | 5 Petals on my Tulip | Ecclesiastically Presbyterian | not Federal Visionist | Optimistic in my eschatology, but not dogmatic | Opposed to the errors of Rome | Opposed to the errors of Pelagius | Trinitarian | In favor of Christian liberty | Otherwise Anonymous
This blog tries to comply with international standards of "fair use" and "fair dealing" in its use of copied material. If you feel that a use of your material is "unfair" contact the blog owner: contact information is available on the blog owner's profile. Contrariwise, those same international standards permit you to make "fair use" and "fair dealing" with the material presented here. More
