Tag: christianity

LUTHER ON MARY’S SINLESSNESS

The following citation is from Luther’s On the Conception of the Mother of God, AD 1527:

“The conception, namely the infusion of the soul, is believed to have taken place gently and blessedly, without original sin coming upon her; so that in the infusion of the soul she was also at the same time purified from original sin, adorned with God’s gifts, and received a holy soul poured into her by God, and thus from the first moment she began to live, SHE WAS FREE FROM ALL SIN. For before she lived, one might well say that she was neither in sin nor outside of sin, which applies only to souls and living humans.” – (Emphasis mine)

This next quote is excerpted from this post: Luther on Luke 2 – Saint John’s Lutheran Church.

Then there are some who express opinions concerning how this birth took place, claiming Mary was delivered of her child while she was praying, in great joy, before she became aware of it, without any pains. I do not condemn these devotional considerations—perhaps they were devised for the benefit of simple-minded folk—but we must stay with the Gospel text which says she gave birth to him, and with the article of the creed which says “born of the Virgin Mary.” There is no deception here, but, as the words indicate, it was a real birth. Now we know, do we not, what the meaning of “to bear” is and how it happens. The birth happened to her exactly as to other women, consciously with her mind functioning normally and with the parts of her body helping along, as is proper at the time of birth, in order that she should be his normal natural mother and he her natural normal son. For this reason her body did not abandon its natural functions which belong to childbirth, except that she gave birth without sin, without shame, without pain, and without injury, just as she had conceived without sin. The curse of Eve, which reads: “In pain you shall bear your children” [Genesis 3:16], did not apply to her. In other respects things happened to her exactly as they happen to any woman giving birth …

I am talking about this so that we may have a foundation for our faith and that we let Christ be a natural human being, in every respect exactly as we are. Nor must we put him in a separate category as far as nature is concerned except where sin and grace are involved. In him and his mother nature was pure in all members and in all the functions of the members. No female body or one of its organs ever attained its natural function without sin, EXCEPT THIS VIRGIN. Here, for one time, God honored nature and its function. The more we draw Christ down into nature and into the flesh, the more consolation accrues for us. Therefore whatever is not contrary to grace should in no way be subtracted from his and his mother’s nature. The text clearly states and declares that she bore him, and that “he is born” is also proclaimed by the angels.

How could God have demonstrated his goodness more powerfully than by stepping down so deep into flesh and blood, that he does not despise that which is kept secret by nature, but honors nature to the highest degree exactly where it was brought into shame to the highest degree in Adam and Eve? … (Martin Luther, “The Gospel for Christmas Eve, Luke 2” in Luther’s Works (Fortress Press, 1974), LII, 7–31; emphasis mine)

Here’s another version taken from: Luther on the Virgin Birth of Christ.

Some argue as to how this birth took place, as if Jesus was born while Mary was praying and rejoicing, without any pain, and before she was conscious of it. While I do not altogether discard that pious supposition, it was evidently invented for the sake of simple minded people. But we must abide by the Gospel, that He was born of the virgin Mary. There is no deception here, for the Word clearly states that it was an actual birth.

“It is well known what is meant by giving birth. Mary’s experience was not different from that of other women, so that the birth of Christ was a real natural birth. Mary being His natural mother and He being her natural Son. Therefore her body performed its functions of giving birth, which naturally belonged to it, except that she brought forth without sin, without shame, without pain and without injury, just as she had conceived without sin. The curse of Eve did not come on her, where God said: ‘In pain thou shalt bring forth children,’ Gen. 3:16; otherwise it was with her in every particular as with every woman who gives birth to a child. Grace does not interfere with nature and her work, but rather improves and promotes it”. (Christmas Day sermon, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 1.1-2, edited by John Nicholas Lenker, translated by John Nicholas Lenker and others [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI 2000] p. 140; emphasis mine)

FURTHER READING

LUTHER & MARY’S VIRGINITY REVISITED

LUTHER’S PRAISE OF MARY

LUTHER ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

MARTIN LUTHER, JAMES & NT CANON

AUGUSTINE ON THE CHURCH’S AUTHORITY

In the following extract Augustine shows how the Gospels’ reliability rests on the authority of the Catholic Church and to, therefore, attack the Church is to undermine the veracity of the Gospels themselves.

Here is what he wrote in refuting of the claims of Manichaeus, the founder of Manicheism. All emphasis is mine.

Chapter 5.— Against the Title of the Epistle of Manichæus

6. Let us see then what Manichæus teaches me; and particularly let us examine that treatise which he calls the Fundamental Epistle, in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened. The epistle begins thus:— “Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.” Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved BY AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you — If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;— Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those WHO COMMANDED ME TO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, FOR IT WAS THROUGH THE CATHOLICS THAT I GOT MY FAITH IN IT; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ’s betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; Acts 1:26 which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. Acts ix Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichæus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichæus. (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental)

FURTHER READING

AUGUSTINE & JOHN DAMASCENE VS. CALVINISTS PT. 1

AUGUSTINE ON JESUS BEING THE ANGEL OF YHVH

AUGUSTINE ON CHRIST’S ETERNAL GENERATION

LUTHER ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

It may surprise Christians to discover that Martin Luther candidly admitted that the Catholic Church traces itself back to the Apostles, that it genuinely has Apostolic Succession, despite having (in Luther’s erroneous view) corrupted itself throughout time.

Here is Luther in his own words. All emphasis is mine:

Today the pope and his crowd cry out against us that they are the church, since they have received Baptism, the Sacrament, and Holy Writ from the apostles and are their successors. They say: “Where else should God’s people be than where His name is praised, and where the successors and heirs of His apostles are to be found? Surely the Turks, the Tartars, and the heathen cannot be His people. Therefore we must be His people; otherwise it will be altogether impossible to find a people of God on earth. Consequently, he who rebels against us resists the Christian Church and Christ Himself.” This will surely offend and repel anyone who is not armed with different weapons and different strength, who listens only to such opinions of the most eminent and influential people on earth. “You are a heretic and an apostle of the devil,” “You are preaching against God’s people and the church, yes, against God Himself.” For it is exceedingly difficult to deprive them of this argument and to talk them out of it.

Yes, we ourselves FIND IT DIFFICULT TO REFUTE IT, especially since WE CONCEDE—AS WE MUST—that so much of what they say IS TRUE: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit FROM THEM. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found AMONG THEM. What business have I, then, to preach against them as a pupil preaching against his teachers? Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: “Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the Creed: I believe in a holy Christian Church, etc.? Now I find this church in the papacy too. It follows, therefore, that if I condemn this church, I am excommunicated, rejected, and damned by God and all the saints.”

For the name “church” includes many scoundrels and rascals who refused to obey God’s Word and acted contrary to it. Yet they were called heirs and successors of the holy patriarchs, priests, and prophets. To be sure, they had God’s Law and promise, the temple, and the priesthood. In fact, they should have been God’s people; but they practiced idolatry so freely under the cloak of the name “church” that God was forced to say: “This shall no longer be My temple and priesthood. My people shall no longer be My people. But to those who are not My people it shall be said: ‘You are sons of the living God’.” Luther’s Sermons on John 16 [LW 24:303-304]

FURTHER READING

MARTIN LUTHER, JAMES & NT CANON

LUTHER & MARY’S VIRGINITY REVISITED

LUTHER’S PRAISE OF MARY

A Coptic Convert Exposes Muhammad Pt. 1

Bulus Ibn Raja (nicknamed al-Wadih [“the Clarifier”]) was a Muslim convert to Christianity and became a Coptic monk. Ibn Raja, who born 950s and died after 1009 AD, wrote a scathing book exposing Muhammad and refuting Islam, titled Kitāb al-wāḍiḥ bi-l-ḥaqq (Arabic: كتاب الواضح بالحق), known in Latin as the Liber denudationis (lit. ’Book of Denuding’).

What makes Ibn Raja’s refutation so remarkable is that he employs the very same Quranic texts, ahadith and objections which Christian apologists employ till this very day. Ibn Raja’s polemic illustrate the old adage that there truly is nothing new under the sun.

In this post I will be excerpting the segment of Ibn Raja’s appeal to the Quran in defense of the preservation of the Torah and the Gospel. I will be citing from David Bertaina’s translation titled Būluṣ ibn Rajāʾ The Fatimid Egyptian Convert Who Shaped Christian Views of Islam (Arabic Christianity: Texts and Studies, 4) (English and Arabic Edition), published by Brill in 2022, pp. 113-121. All emphasis will be mine.

Chapter 2

[16] The refutation against whoever says that the Torah and the Gospel have been altered.³⁵

[17] Suppose someone says: “Moses brought news about him in the Torah, and Christ brought news about him in the Gospel, but you altered the Gospel and corrupted it, and likewise the Jews altered the Torah and changed it.”³⁶ We answer them about that saying to them: “When do you claim the Torah and the Gospel were altered?”

[18] Now if one of them says: “The Torah was altered after Moses’ death and the Gospel after Christ’s ascension,” then this is the Qurʾan’s answer which annuls it clearly, because it claims about God that he said in the Qurʾan in sura “Jonah”: “If you are in doubt about what we have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you.”³⁷ If what he says about altering the Torah and the Gospel is true – and they are lies – then he has brought an accusation against God for commanding [Muḥammad] to ask the liars. How can those intellectuals not comprehend this clear impossibility! For he claims that God informed him that the Torah had been altered after Moses and likewise the Gospel, and they are lies. Then after that he brought an accusation against God for commanding [Muḥammad] that if he was in doubt about what He revealed to him, [then] he should ask those who were reading the Scripture before him, and they are the Christians and the Jews. How can it be that, according to him, they are liars at the beginning of the conversation and they are telling the truth at the end of the conversation!

[19] How can one who proclaims prophethood express doubt in God with these false assertions which he claims, since he says: “I am the master of the children of Adam, among the prophets and martyrs and the righteous.”³⁸And were it not for him, “God would not have created the Heavens or the earth or anything between them.”³⁹What was added to his claims was that he ascended to seven Heavens, [and the distance] between each Heaven was a five-hundred year march.⁴⁰He saw some of the miracles in it, which I will mention in my book in another place, God willing. How can [Muḥammad], who was in this glorious state, and the angels and the messengers appeared to him, and he spoke to God directly, and [God] put his hand between his shoulders until [Muḥammad] felt its coolness in his chest⁴¹ – according to his impossible allegation – have had doubts about God? If he did not believe all of this, and his soul was not comforted until God commanded him to ask the liars to remove his doubts at that time, then this is weakness and ignorance. If these [Jews and Christians] were not liars but they were telling the truth, and it was for their sincerity that [God] commanded him to ask them so it would strengthen his weak soul at that time, then why did he associate them with lying and [claim] that they altered what they embrace from the Torah and the Gospel?

[20] There is a proof even better than this which demonstrates the confusion of his claims, where it says in sura “The Table”⁴² that the Jews appealed to him for a legal decision. That matter was before Abū Hurayra⁴³ – whose name was ʿAbd Shams or it is said ʿAbd Nahm⁴⁴ or it is said “Grasshopper” – whom Muḥammad appointed to judge between the people. So the Jews opposing each other came to him. He said: “I cannot judge between you until I ask Muḥammad,” so he went to him. Then he said to him: “The Jews have come as litigants and I will not judge between them without your permission.” He said to him: “God has revealed to me in sura “The Table” concerning the Jews, saying, ‘If they come to you, then judge between them or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they will never harm you at all. If you judge between them, judge with equity, for God loves those who act with equity. How can they ask you for judgment when they have the Torah and God’s judgment is in it?’”⁴⁵ Muḥammad had already testified to that, namely that the Torah had God’s judgment in his time and that it was not altered. So if you claim that it was altered after Moses’ death, then you have made God into a liar in his words. It already mentioned in Muḥammad’s time that [the Torah] contains God’s judgment as well. So now, your claim that the Torah and the Gospel are altered is invalidated.

[21] Another proof is where it says in surat “al-Ḥijr”: “It is we who revealed the reminder and we will indeed be its guardian.”⁴⁶ For you, the Torah and the Gospel are the revealed reminder.⁴⁷ If that has been altered, then it has nullified God’s protection for them. You made a liar of God in his statement, “We will indeed be its guardian.”⁴⁸If that [Scripture] was not altered, and you returned to the truth and would yield to it, then [you would acknowledge that] we did not find any mention of your companion in it nor that which can establish the proof of his prophethood or anything else; only what our Lord Christ says in the pure Gospel, where he says: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their actions.”⁴⁹ The exalted and elevated one also said in the Gospel that on the Day of Resurrection, the false prophets will say to him: “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name?” Then he will declare to them, “Truly I tell you, I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.”⁵⁰ And he said – exalted be his name – in another place: “Do not follow the religion of the Ḥunafāʾ⁵¹ and do not enter the cities of the Samaritans.” He told us that the religion of the Ḥunafāʾ is like the Samaritans’ religion, and he told us to be wary of the religion of the Ḥunafāʾ just as he told us to be wary of the Samaritans’ and Jews’ religions.

[22] Adding to that, he told us that John the son of Zechariah was the seal of the prophets.⁵² There is no prophet after him, because the prophets are twenty-four in number, the first of them was Moses and the last of them was John the son of Zechariah. Some of these prophets talked to God directly, and some of them received [God’s message] through his pure angels, and some of them spoke through the Holy Spirit. They foretold the incarnation of our Lord Christ from the pure Virgin, and her pregnancy with him and her birth-giving and his life with the people, and what happened to him from his enemies the accursed Jews, from his crucifixion and his death and his piercing and his burial and his resurrection and his ascension. Every one of them foretold what God favored him with, which was perfectly complete, and they did not contradict one another. The blessed and exalted one accomplished these things one after another in order to fulfill all of the prophecies.

[23] An example of that is if a king wanted to march, his troops would go before him. So they would announce that the king is going to come after them. When they march all together, the king would come after them and confirm that their statement was true. In the same fashion, all the prophets prophesied about our Lord Christ. Then he came after them so he confirmed their prophecies. Then the prophecies ceased after him. No prophet will appear with a sign or a proof except for the false prophets about whom our Lord Christ informed us.

35 This verse and the theme of corruption (taḥrīf) became part of an extensive discussion in the hadith and fiqh literature on the permissibility of consulting the People of the Book regarding their sources, doctrines, and laws.

36 The Islamic claim that the Bible originally had references to Muḥammad which Jews and Christians subsequently altered in their texts is found in places such as Q 61:6 and Q 26:196–197. Muslims believed Muḥammad was referred to as the prophet in Deuteronomy 18:15, the camel rider in Isaiah 21:7, and the Advocate/Paraclete mentioned in John 14–16.

37 Q 10:94. Throughout the treatise, Ibn Rajāʾ uses the first line of a sura for its title.

38 This reference is based upon a hadith on the authority of Abū Hurayra on the virtues of Muḥammad: “I will be the leader of the sons of Adam on the Day of Resurrection.” See the Arabic text and English translation in Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: English Translation of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 7 vols., ed. Abū Ṭāhir Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī, Nasiruddin Khattab, Huda Khattab, and Abū Khalīl (Riyadh: Darussalam, 2007), 6:134 (Book 43, #5940). The hadith is also found in the collection (Arabic text and English translation) of Abū Dāwūd, English Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, 5 vols., ed. Abū Ṭāhir Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī (Riyadh: Darussalam, 2008), 5:195 (Book 39 #4673).

39 Q 32:4.

40 The scribe notes that this incident is alluded to in al-Mirāj Q 17:1. This topic is analyzed in chapter 30 later.

41 He is referring to a hadith relating a dream Muḥammad had in which this event took place, according to Ibn ʿAbbās. See al-Tirmidhī, Jāmiʿ at-Tirmidhī, 5:540–541 (Book 44, #3233). See also the text and translation in Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, English Translation of Musnad Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, 3 vols., ed. Nasiruddin Khattab and Huda Khattab (Riyadh: Darussalam, 2012), 3:238–239 (#3484).

42 Q 5.

43 On Abū Hurayra al-Dawsī (d. 678/681), see EI², 1:129.

44 Both manuscripts give his nickname as ʿAbd al-Fahm, or “Servant of Understanding.”

45 Q 5:42–43.

46 Q 15:9.

47 The title of al-dhikr given to earlier scriptures such as the Torah and Gospel as a “recollection” or “remembrance” that the Qurʾan recalls in its verses is well known. See for instance Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 54–96.

48 The Latin version also adds: “Therefore God always preserved the testimony of His scripture among His faithful before Muḥammad and will preserve it incorrupt after. Indeed how could the Christians and the Jews, who oppose each other in the extreme – both the former and the latter – everywhere have falsified their holy scripture in the same way (and these falsifiers before God stand in the hatred of Muḥammad), while dispersed throughout the world by the decree of the centuries? For either this happened secretly, and some codex would have remained intact, or it was publicly well-known, and these things would not have been concealed from the histories of the nations.” See Burman, Religious Polemic, 254–257.

49 Matthew 7:15.

50 Matthew 7:22–23.

51 Matthew 10:5. The Arabic word ḥunafāʾ has a double meaning here. It refers to pagan religions of the ancient gentiles, but also refers in coded terms to Muslims.

52 Note that Ibn Rajāʾ appropriates this Islamic title for Muḥammad (khātam al-anbiyāʾ) for use in his Christian theological argument.

Here are the passages which Ibn Raja cites to show how the Quran confirms the textual incorruptibility and authority of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures:

Listeners for the sake of falsehood! Greedy for illicit gain! If then they have recourse unto thee (Muhammad) judge between them or disclaim jurisdiction. If thou disclaimest jurisdiction, then they cannot harm thee at all. But if thou judgest, judge between them with equity. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable. How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them)? Yet even after that they turn away. Such (folk) are not believers. Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the prophets who surrendered (unto Allah) judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the priests (judged) by such of Allah’s Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and thereunto were they witnesses. So fear not mankind, but fear Me. And barter not My revelations for a little gain. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers. And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers.

And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah – a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ. S. 5:43-48

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers. S. 10:94

Lo! We, even We, reveal the Reminder, and lo! We verily are its Guardian. S. 15:9

And here all the places where the Holy Bible is called the reminder (al-dhikr):

And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men whom We inspired – Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not! – S. 16:43

And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men, whom We inspired. Ask the followers of the Reminder if ye know not? S. 21:7

And verily we have written in the Scripture, after the Reminder: My righteous slaves will inherit the earth: S. 21:105

And We verily gave Moses the guidance, and We caused the Children of Israel to inherit the Scripture, A guide and a reminder for men of understanding. S. 40:53-54

All quranic citations are taken from Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall’s version.

I have more from Ibn Rajal in the next part: A Coptic Convert Exposes Muhammad Pt. 2.

FURTHER READING

What the Qur’an says about the Bible (overview page)

The meaning and implications of Sura 10:94 and Sura 15:9

Muhammad the compromiser and doubter

Muhammad the Compromiser and Doubter

Sura 10:94 and Muhammad’s doubts

Does the Quran confirm the Bible and the Canonical Gospels?

The Quran’s Confirmation of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures

Does Taurat Refer Only to the Revelation Given to Moses?

The Muhammadan Fraud That Was Ahmed Deedat: Which Bible?