Martin Luther in His Own Words

"I could use two secretaries. I do almost nothing during the day but write letters. I am a conventual preacher, reader at meals, parochial preacher, director of studies, overseer of eleven monasteries, superintendent of the fish pond at Litzkau, referee of the squabble at Torgau, lecturer on Paul, collector of material for a commentary on the Psalms, and then, as I said, I am overwhelmed with letters. I rarely have full time for the canonical hours and for saying mass, not to mention my own temptations with the world, the flesh, and the Devil. You see how lazy I am."

(Replying to Sylvester Prierias, who drafted a reply to Luther’s 95 theses on behalf of the pope)
"I am sorry now that I despised Teztel. Ridiculous as he was, he was more acute than you. You cite no Scripture. You give no reasons…You call me a leper because I mingle truth with error. I am glad you admit there is some truth."

"Luther once, when asked how he envisaged the appearance of the apostle Paul, answered with an affectionate guffaw, 'I think he was a scrawny shrimp like [Philip] Melanchthon.'"

(In a debate with John Eck)
ECK: Are you the only one that knows anything? Except for you is all the Church in error?
LUTHER: I answer that God once spoke through the mouth of an ass.

(Reply to the papal bull against Luther)
"They show their ignorance and bad conscience by inventing the adverb 'respectively.' My articles are called 'respectively some heretical, some erroneous, some scandalous,' which is as much to say, 'We don’t know which are which.' O meticulous ignorance! I wish to be instructed, not respectively, but absolutely and certainly. I demand that they show absolutely, not respectively, distinctly and not confusedly, certainly and not probably, clearly and not obscurely, point by point and not in a lump, just what is heretical. Let them show where I am a heretic, or dry up their spittle."

"I was wrong, I admit it, when I said that indulgences were 'the pious defrauding of the faithful.' I recant and I say, 'Indulgences are the most impious frauds and imposters of the most rascally pontiffs, by which they deceive the souls and destroy the goods of the faithful.'”

"I was wrong. I retract the statement that certain articles of [the heretic] John Hus are evangelical. I say now, 'Not some but all the articles of John Hus were condemned by Antichrist [i.e. the pope] and his apostles in the synagogue of Satan.' And to your face, most holy Vicar of God, I say freely that all the condemned articles of John Hus are evangelical and Christian, and yours are downright impious and diabolical."

"Workers with brawn are prone to despise workers with brain, such as city secretaries and school teachers. The soldier boasts that it is hard work to ride in armor and endure heat, frost, dust, and thirst. But I’d like to see a horseman who could sit the whole day and look into a book. It is no great trick to hang two legs over a horse. They say writing is just pushing a feather, but I notice that they hang swords on their hips and feathers in high honor on their hats. Writing occupies not just the fist or the foot while the rest of the body can be singing or jesting, but the whole man. As for school teaching, it is so strenuous that no one ought to be bound to it for more than ten years."

You Say Po-tay-to, I Say Po-tah-to

First of all, let me apologize for the drought of posts recently. After a year off, I returned to seminary three weeks ago. I am working full-time and taking six hours of credit, so I am a little busier than I was a month ago. I will endeavor to post more frequently (it is a good escape from my academic rigors), but it will likely be less than before. And now, on to the post...

I have always disliked the abuse of the idea that the difference between two words is "mere semantics". Certainly, there are times where any number of synonyms will do the job quite nicely (i.e. there is overlap in their semantic maps). Also, in casual conversation, trivial emails, etc, there is no need to be precise all the time. On the contrary, there are times that every "jot and tittle" plays an important role and must be precise. (And I would add, in any type of writing where one wants to be taken seriously, one should strive for precision.) For example, take the following sentences:

God causes sin.
God allows sin.
God orders sin.

This debate came up in a discussion in one of my classes. One participant indicated that he felt that causing and allowing were basically the same thing in this context--using one or the other for theological reasons was "mere semantics". This, I feel, is not the case. The sentence, "God causes sin," implies that God is the originator of sin. "God allows sin," implies that God does not originate it, but at the same time He does not stop it from happening. The third sentence, "God orders sin," implies that God does not originate it, but He allows it so that it might accomplish His purposes. Each of these three sentences, then, carries with it different theologies proper and hamartiologies, and a simple dismissal on the grounds of "mere semantics" is not acceptable. To quote a famous radio talk-show host, "Words mean things."

This is not meant to belittle anyone who isn't anal-retentive about English like I am. I understand that not all people have a "bad grammar" sensor that plagues them every day, and that's okay. What this post is meant for is to dispel the notion that because you have formed a certain opinion about something, any slight change in wording of the proposition is "mere semantics" and can safely be ignored. This is most definitely true with respect to the Bible. If you don't believe me, pick up an academic commentary sometime. In an inspired book, one must allow for the possibility that one word may indeed make or break a certain theology. A famous example is John 1:1. Most of us read it, "The Word was God," but Jehovah's Witnesses will tell you it says, "The Word was a God." This is a drastic difference--all because of a one-letter word! (By the way, the former translation is preferable because of the rules of Greek grammar.)

Semantics is an often abused word. It is in the same position as the word "academic", which in the vernacular of our day often means "insignificant". I would urge you to help the little guy out--pay attention to him once in a while. Do a word study. Take the time to think critically about a proposition (or even a preposition). It may not be "mere semantics" after all.

You May Be Right, I May Be Crazy

I have this crazy idea that what I do matters. I don't mean that it matters to my wife or my friends. I don't even mean that God will judge me sometime after I die for what I did on earth. What I mean is the Lord of the Universe uses my faithful actions to bring about His Kingdom. Do you realize how crazy this sounds? What I do matters.

But this is what Jesus lived and taught. For example, when he was in his hometown, people didn't think he was anyone special. He grew up with these people, after all! So what did he do there? Not much, really. Mark records it by saying that "he could do no miracle there" (6:5). While the other Evangelists say that "he did not do miracles there", Mark boldly proclaims that the Son of God was stymied because of others' lack of belief. Do you realize how crazy this sounds? What I think matters.

I'm not sure if many Christians really get this idea. What I do matters. Yes, we pray. Yes, we might even read our Bibles. But what if we really believed that God can and will do glorious things through us? Jesus said we will do greater things than he did. But we have to believe. We have to believe that there is a correlation between prayer and results, though science would tell us otherwise. We have to believe that something special, indescribable, is happening during our church services, and act accordingly. We have to believe that God really, really, really thinks we who are unworthy are indeed worthy of being used in mighty ways. Do you realize how crazy this sounds? What I believe matters.

But it just might be a lunatic God's looking for.

You Want Me to What?

I read the story of Gideon this week. I knew that he was a great guy who led Israel to victory over her enemies. I knew that he hands out lots of Bibles now. But I must confess, I never knew how he got his start.

It turns out that the Midianites and the Amalekites were going throughout Israel and devastating the place. They were destroying all of the crops and taking all of the livestock. They were basically razing everything so that they could come in and set up camp. Israel had to go hide out in caves just to stay out of their way! (This personally reminds me of Ernest Goes to Camp.) This is where we meet Gideon. He, being the youngest of his brothers, draws the short straw. He has to climb up out of the cave and try to salvage some of the wheat harvest. With every step, he is looking around for the Midianites, the most dangerous of enemies. But he does not meet the Midianites. He meets a friend, though far more dangerous.

The angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, "The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior."

If I were Gideon, I would have laughed. I'm a valiant warrior? I make my living by hiding in caves! Besides, I'm the youngest of my brothers; I'm expendable--why do you think I'm out here, anyway? Precisely because I don't matter! And Gideon's reaction is only marginally better than mine. He questions the angel, who answers by telling him to go deliver Israel from Midian (a classic God response).

As if that isn't ludicrous enough, Gideon, after waving some fleece around, actually decides to give it a shot! After all, Israel has a decent-sized army. Maybe he can do it. It's better than beating wheat, anyway. But God--neglecting the advice of Gideon, I am sure--gives him all of 300 men, sending 31,700 perfectly good soldiers packing. (And do you think those 300 men were the cream of the crop? Look at their leader!)


Again, if I were Gideon, I would be writing out my will at this point. This is absolutely hopeless. I'm going to die out here because I believed a wet piece of cloth. I wonder what my funeral will be like.

Of course, this is when I realize that I am Gideon. God has told me that I will do greater things than Jesus; I can't even succeed at reading my Bible every day. The apostles performed great miracles; I work in a cubicle. What can I possibly do?

The point of the story is that is precisely where God wants us. This way, when we do have great victories, there is no doubt that God is the true victor. What can I do? Not much. What can God do through me? All things.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

A Shameless Promotion.

Everyone, stop what you are doing right now! You, drop that burger! Put down Harry Potter this instant! Changing the baby can wait!

The Jacobsonian has arrived.

That's right, my college roommate Josh has started a blog. We have had many good conversations over the past 8 years, and his is an opinion I respect a great deal. Listen to what he says.

That is all.

Woke Up Dreaming - Joe Bonamassa

Joe Bonamassa is the closest thing we have to SRV today. He has much of what Stevie had: A powerful voice and incredible guitar playing. What's more, Joe plays and sings with passion. He is not just a technically adept player, or an average singer. He truly makes you feel what he's feeling--he communicates through his music in a way that few equal.

I found this clip of him playing in a music store, just him and a guitar. All I can say is I wish I could play guitar like that.

Enjoy.

A Brief Comment on Textual Criticism.

In the past week, I had several people come to me with the same issue. I had the chance to speak to 40 youth about Jesus last week at a camp I help run, and I challenged them to take a good, hard, long look at Jesus, his claims and how he fits into their lives. Many of the campers were bold enough to do so, for which I am extremely appreciative. Several, though, had a hard time with the reliability of the Bible. Basically, the argument is as follows: Since the Bible has been translated into so many different languages, it can neither be accurate nor reliable today. I do hear this argument come up at times, and I thought I would give a little response to it so as to edify you, the reader.

This is a weak argument. (This is not a dig at those who have questions about biblical reliability; I understand completely why one might have questions about such an old book.) The argument is weak because it is based on a false assumption. It is true that the Bible has been translated into many, many languages. Those translations, however, are almost always based on original-language manuscripts, which we do still have today. In fact, archaeologists have discovered thousands of biblical manuscripts spanning thousands of years. The Bible is the most well-attested ancient book by a large magnitude. With this much evidence, scholars can trace back to what the original source, or autograph, said using textual criticism, a science that compares and analyzes textual deviations based on established sets of criteria. Using these techniques, scholars have established that the text as we have it today is 97% accurate for the Old Testament and 99% accurate for the New Testament. (By the way, these are conservative estimates.)

This is a very brief overview, but hopefully it will satisfy most inquisitors. A few more thoughts are in order, though.

1. Of the 1-3% of today's Bible that might be inaccurate, none of it pertains to any crucial theological point. Most of these issues deal with minor grammatical details (singular vs. plural, etc).
2. For one to hold the initial argument to be valid, that person must also question the reliability of all of the ancient works to a much greater degree: Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Euripides, Jerome, etc.
3. One may hold that the Bible has been handed down to us accurately and still disbelieve its contents. Though I would prefer this not to be the case, it is at least a more intellectually satisfying position to hold than to say that the Bible is not reliable.