New Blog

As of today, I will no longer be using this website. My new blog site is http://www.covenantgrace.blogspot.com. Thanks.

The Lord's Supper: Recovering From the False Dogma of Memorialism

Over Christmas break, I've been re-reading one of my favorite books by one of my favorite and most respected theologians- God of Promise by Michael Horton. It's the best scholarly introduction to classic covenant theology that I have ever read, and I'd reccomend it to anyone interested in reading a historical, biblical, and systematic-theological overview of the main tenets of covenant theology and its implications. In reading Horton's chapter Signs and Seals of the Covenant, I began to think about the Baptistic memorialism which is common domga among most "evangelical" churches, and the harm which this misunderstanding of the Lord's Supper actually inflicts upon the lives of individual believers. Here is what I was brought up to believe: The Lord's Supper is a time in which believers are to examine themselves in order to find any sign of sin and infidelity within their hearts. If they have been faithful, holy, and blameless with respect to the love of God and their neighbor, they are then qualified to partake of the elements which are mere symbols or signs, intended to invoke their powers of reflection upon the saving work of Christ. According to these teachers, the supper is individualistic in nature, and implicitly man-centered in its practice. In fairness to the pietistic memorialism found in fundamentalist circles, I will say that this view of the Lord's Supper is an understandable re-action to the heresies of Rome and the compromises of Lutheransim. In fact, the memorialist position can be most clearly expounded in the writings of the great Reformer Ulrich Zwingli. Yet something is horribly missing in this doctrine of the Lord's Supper and Horton's chapter brings it to light. Here's what he says:

"The problem with the pietistic version of the Lord's Supper, therefore, is that in its obsession with the indivual's inner piety, it loses much of the import of the feast as a sacred meal that actually binds us to Christ and to each other. Instead of viewing it first as God's saving action toward us and then as our fellowship with each other in Christ, we come to see it as just another opportunity to be threatened with the law. Instead of celebrating the foretaste of the marriage supper of the Lamb on Mount Zion, we are still trembling at the foot of Mount Sinai. It is no wonder, then, that there is a diminished interest in frequent communion."

Although numerous aspects of the memorialist/Zwinglian position are found to be erroneous, and in the end unbiblical, two main errors stand out to me. First, the typical Baptistic/fundamentalist view of the Lord's Supper understands the nature of the event in purely memorialistic terms. In an effort to run away from Rome, they have run to the other dangerous extreme of understanding the bread and wine as being devoid of any kind of supernatural grace, or sanctifying nourishment. Despite Jesus' claim that when we partake of the Supper, we are in a very real sense partaking of His body and His blood, memorialists look at the elements as bare symbols meant only to invoke and direct our faculty of reflections to the gospel. And similarly, despite the apostle Paul's explicit words, in I Cor. 10, memorialists still maintain that the Lord's Supper is not a means of grace- "the cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" [I Cor. 10:16,17] The problem is that the Lord's Supper is indeed a means of grace as these passages and others testify. The question is, in what sense is the Lord's Supper a means of grace, and in what sense is Jesus Christ present within this divinely instituted covenant meal? The great reformer John Calvin rejected Luther's consubstantiation, Zwingli's pietistic memorialism and Rome's heretical transubstantiation. He opted for a more balanced and bliblical view, affirming the presence of Jesus within the covenant meal while denying the lumping together of the sign and the thing signified. "Thus Calvin refuses the false dilemma of either annihilating the sign by the signified (Rome) , confusing them (Luther) , or separating them (Zwingli)." Calvin taught that Christ is ascended bodily in heaven, and therefore not to be identified as the elements of bread and wine. Yet in a mysterious working of the Holy Spirit:

"believers nevertheless receive this same Christ born of Mary and crucified for our sins, but in heaven where he is seated at the Father's right hand...The Lord's Supper, therefore, is an irreducible mystery. The Spirit, as Christ promised, takes that which belongs to Christ and gives it to us. He makes us one with Christ, to feed on him as one person. It is the Spirit who not only cries out in our hearts, 'Abba, Father!' but who effects our communion even now with the ascended Lord. Therefore, what we receive in the supper is not only confirmation of our own share in the sacrifice once offered, but a real sharing in the one offered."

As the preaching of the gospel, from the Scriptures, through verbal proclamation, is a divine means of grace, so partaking in the Lord's Supper, with the covenant community, through visual elements is also a divine means of grace. Preaching uses words, the Supper uses visual elements, both used by God to confer sanctifying grace upon the Israel of God whom God has called from darkness to light. In the Lord's Supper we feed upon Jesus and receive the efficacious confirmation of the oath sworn to Adam and his descendents in the covenant of grace. Whats important to note is that God is the one who is acting and initating. Like the covenant of grace which is a unilateral royal grant freely made with believers and their children, so the Lord's Supper, through the working of the Spirit uniting us to Christ and each other, is a confirmation of the covenant of grace and an efficacious means of grace given for our sanctification.
The second serious error inherent within the memorialist position is the emphasis on an individualistic kind of self-examination or scrutiny necessary in order to partake of the supper. Before discovering the Biblical nature of the Lord's Supper, I would approach the Lord's table with an intense fear of what God might do to me if I partook of the elements with harbored sin within my heart. Granted, Paul did urge the Corinthians to examine themselves for the purpose of eating and drinking the Lord's Supper in a proper manner. But as Horton labors to prove, Paul's intent was not to keep believers from partaking of the supper, but instead to rebuke the Corinthian belivers for participating in drunkenness, hierarchical biases, and a party-spirit when they came to the table. His purpose was to create a due reverence and a proper understanding of the Supper's nature, not to instill fear in believers who daily fight against indwelling sin. The Lord's Supper is a celebration of Jesus' redemptive work for His people and an effectual seal of the covenant of grace made to weak and struggling sinners. Instead of barring struggling believers from the Lord's Supper, God desires those weak sinners to come and partake so that they might grow and receive the Spirit's grace. Horton writes that:

"Paul's warning simply cannot be read as placing the choice of communing in the hands of individual's, who must then determine whether their faith and repentance are equal to the task. After all, the sacrament is given precisely to strengthen weak faith and repentance, to cheer downcast souls with the good news that Christ is sacrificed and raised to the Father's right hand even for them...worthy eating in the context of 1 Corinthians has to do with coming to the Supper with understanding and reverence for what is taking place, not in orgies, dissensions, and sacriliege."

I think that the widespread nominalism which characterizes modern day evangelicalism is a direct result of a misunderstanding, further, an unbiblical re-definition of the Lord's Supper as soley memorialistic and individualistic in nature. Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the Preaching of the Gospel are God's divinely instituted means of grace wherein He uniquely and efficaciously strengthens our faith as we walk through the wilderness of this world. Failure to grow in grace is a direct result of an under-appreciation of the sacraments, and a misunderstanding of their intended function. The obsession with novelty, methodology, and "purpose driven" approaches to church growth results from a failure to love, cherish, and partake in the means of grace which God has expressly and explicitly given us in His Word. The Lord's Supper is a means of grace without which we cannot and will not grow. I say this to my own shame, as I have failed to appreciate this wonderful institution all of my life. Let me close with the words of Princeton theologian A.A. Hodge, one who rightly understood the nature of the Lord's Supper:

"If he [Christ] is not present really and truly, then the sacrament can have no interest or real value to us. It does not do to say that this presence is only spiritual, because that phrase is ambiguous. If it means that the presence of Christ is not something objective to us, but simply a mental apprehension or idea of him subjectively present to our consciousness, then the phrase is false. Christ as an objective fact is as really present and active in the sacrament as are the bread and wine, or the minister or our fellow communicants by our side. If it means that Christ is present only as he is represented by the Holy Ghost, it is not wholly true, because Christ is one person and the Holy Ghost another, and it is Christ who is personally present...It does not do to say that the divinity of Christ is present while his humanity is absent, because it is the entire indivisible divine-human Person of Christ which is present."
[A.A. Hodge, quoted in God of Promise]

Soli Deo Gloria

Socratic Education in Book VII of Plato's Republic [My Paper for Ancient/Medieval Philosophy]...

Daily exposure to the fast pace mindlessness which pervades our society might lead us to the conclusion that the mind exists for no other reason but to be entertained. High school students daily complain about the boring nature of classes, eagerly expecting the end of the day and the joyful return to their television sets or video game systems. Television itself often plays the role of a therapeutic diversion from the harsh realities of human existence, numbing minds and cultivating ignorance. Unlike the frivolous nature of our post-modern society which decries education as something boring and useless, the pre-modern mind was deeply concerned with education and understood it as absolutely necessary and useful for both the individual and for the society. In book VII of Plato’s Republic (sections C, D, and E), Socrates asserts that the primary role of education within the society is to re-direct the best natures towards the highest realities of archetypal forms. Once the student has been sufficiently exposed to “the good”, it is his duty to descend again into the society of former prisoners, persuading and compelling them to work together for the benefit of the city as a whole. For Socrates, education is pragmatic in nature, a means to achieving the end of harmonious living within the city. On the other hand, a Biblical understanding of education differs in many ways from the Socratic. The most obvious difference between the two are the fundamental principles driving the process of education or the “moving force” through which education is successfully undertaken. For Socrates, nature is the fundamental principle which drives education, whereas for Jesus, Paul, and other biblical writers, grace holds the place of prominent importance.
Book VII of Plato’s Republic is familiar to many because of the famous cave image which Socrates describes in the beginning sections. The passage in sections C, D, and E can only be understood within the context of that particular metaphor and Plato’s doctrine of forms. In book VI, Plato introduces his doctrine of the forms through the mouth of Socrates. He asserts that “there is a fair itself, a good itself, and so on for all the things we set down as many.” These higher realities which Plato refers to as “Ideas” cannot be physically seen by the eyes, but only understood mentally through the intellect. Throughout the Republic, Plato will refer to the highest and most supreme archetypal reality as “the idea of the good.” For Plato, the philosopher’s quest is to redirect his soul towards the forgotten knowledge of archetypal goodness, everything else being subsequent to that end. Hence, in book VII Plato uses the image of a cave to describe the miserable condition of mankind in his slavish ignorance, and the process of illumination through which he re-discovers the realities behind the shadows he had been accustomed to seeing his whole life. Initially, this acquaintance with reality is blinding , dazzling and difficult to understand. The man must become acquainted with reality and “get accustomed , if he were going to see what’s above.” The man who has experienced the unseen realities of archetypal forms is the only man fit to be an adequate ruler of a city. Thus Plato asserts that the ideal ruler is both a philosopher and a king.
In typical Platonic fashion, the arguments presented in sections C, D, and E are neatly structured and logically coherent. First, Socrates presents the problematic consequences of under-education and over-education, which is then followed by his presentation of another option. Glaucon objects to this option and continues by citing reasons for his disagreement with Socrates. Once Glaucon has objected, Socrates presents his conclusion and implies that Glaucon’s objection was grounded in a misunderstanding of education. Let us then look at Socrates’ position more clearly in order to understand that education is functionally pragmatic with respect to the individual and the society. After scrutinizing Socrates’ philosophy of education, we will then examine significant biblical passages in order to understand the differences and similarities between Socratic and Biblical views of education.
For Socrates, education is a liberating remedy which frees the mind from its blinded ignorance, and compels the soul to look upwards to the idea of the good. This understanding of education is particularly important for the reader of Plato to remember when studying his text. Plato sees education as something directed primarily towards the mind of the individual philosopher who has been carefully selected according to his nature and temperament. This is important because modernity’s influence on our culture has led us to believe that in order for something to be good, it must first be tangibly beneficial and useful. Knowledge for the sake of individual liberation to unseen realities is not something the modern mind would be keen on accepting. Yet for Plato, education initially transforms the individual‘s mind, regardless of the many tangible benefits it eventually produces. This is why Socrates begins his argument by saying that, “those who are without education and experience of truth would never be adequate stewards of a city.” Two things are absolutely essential to a man who will become a steward of a city. These two things are education and experience of truth, the former being the means by which the latter is attained. If I were to re-phrase Socrates’ assertion positively, it would be something to the extent of, “Education and experience of truth are necessary for a man to be an adequate steward.” The explanation or reason behind this assertion is that without education, the steward wouldn’t, “have any single goal in life at which they must aim in doing everything they do in private or public.” In other words, the experience of truth liberates the student and acquaints him with the idea of the good. The student then understands that the “idea of the good” is the source, means, and purpose of everything in this world. Without this understanding of “the good”, man is purposeless both in private and in public. In private, because his decisions will be based on an ignorance of truth and reality. In public, because there is no adequate foundation for his relationship to the community. For Socrates, truth must be individually experienced if a man desires to be an adequate and purposeful ruler.
Next, Socrates focuses upon the man who has been sufficiently educated yet refuses to descend again into the society of his former prisoners. This man, according to Socrates, is not fit to be a steward of the city because, “they won’t be willing to act, believing they have emigrated to a colony on the Isles of the Blessed while they are still alive.” The student who has achieved the task of understanding true reality finds so much enjoyment in “the good, that he can’t imagine descending again into the community of people enslaved by their ignorance. Socrates previously explained that when the student experiences true reality, his fellow citizens might mock him and think of him as a fool. It would be reasonable to desire isolation from the community. Yet according to Socrates, education does not exist for the purpose of isolating the philosopher from society. Hence, a man is needed who is both educated and willing to rule. This man is presented as the ideal ruler, sufficiently educated and willing to descend again into the society. In Socrates’ own words, the founder’s of the city ought to, “compel the best natures to go to the study which we were saying before is the greatest, to see the good and to go up that ascent; and, when they have gone up and seen sufficiently, not to permit them what is now permitted.” That which is permitted and should never be is the allowance of the philosopher to, “to remain there and not be willing to go down again among those prisoners or share their labors and honors.” Socrates concludes that education possesses a twofold purpose. It is a means by which the philosopher individually experiences the good, and a foundation on which the structure of society is built. Because of Glaucon’s objection, Socrates is afforded an opportunity to further expound upon the nature of education and the purpose of the educated man.
Glaucon objects to Socrates’ assertion by asking the question, “Are we to do them an injustice, and make them live a worse life when a better is possible for them?” Two things are worthy of notice within Glaucon’s objection. First, Glaucon accuses Socrates’ assertion of being illogical and unjust. Why should we force the philosopher to descend into a society of ignorance after being acquainted with the reality of the good? Second, Glaucon assumes that the descent of the philosopher back into society will force him to live in an inferior way. Conversely, isolation from the society of ignorance and perpetual enjoyment of “the good” seems like a fruitful reward for the philosopher’s years of intellectual and scholarly rigor. Socrates responds to Glaucon’s objection by pointing out that Glaucon’s argument rests in a misunderstanding of education. He argues that, “it’s not the concern of law that any one class in the city fare exceptionally well.” In other words, Socrates’ goal is not to make one particular class of society happy to the exclusion of the rest. Socrates’ goal in creating this hypothetical city is to produce a society in which every class of people live harmoniously among one another. This can only be achieved by the leadership of an educated man who, “contrives to bring this about in the city as a whole, harmonizing the citizens by persuasion and compulsion, making them to share with one another the benefit that each is able to bring to the common-wealth. And it produces such men in the city, not in order to let them turn whichever way each wants, but in order that it may use them in binding the city together.” Harmonious living, a purposeful pursuit of the societal good , and unity among citizens can only be achieved through the philosopher who compels and persuades the citizens to act in such a manner. This, according to Socrates, is the goal of all education.
The doctrines of Christianity, embedded within the inspired pages of the Scripture, are both similar and different with respect to a Socratic view of education.
There are two significant similarities and differences between the Socratic understanding in book VII and the Biblical understanding set forth in Scripture . According to Socrates, the mind is a faculty of the soul which is the primary recipient of knowledge and the means by which the student “sees the good.” Similarly, the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans, commands the Roman Christians to, “be transformed by the renewing of your minds (Rom. 12:2).” For both Socrates and Paul, the mind is the recipient of knowledge and the means by which mankind is transformed. Secondly, both Socrates
and the Bible emphasize the importance of authority and direction within the community. Socrates asserts that the society’s greatest need is a philosopher who persuades and compels the individual citizens to live harmoniously and work for the good of society. In Acts 20:28, Paul argues that God has given the church elders who are responsible to, “be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock” and whose function it is to, “shepherd the church of God.” Although the role and purpose of the authority figure is different for Socrates when compared to Paul, this common agreement on the need for authority and direction can be seen in both the Republic and the Bible.
The first difference which can be easily seen when studying the Republic in light of the Bible, is the difference between grace and nature and their roles within the soul of an individual. In the passage being studied, Socrates asserts that only the “best natures” are the ones fit for philosophical education. The implication is that mankind possesses intrinsic goodness within his soul, and that others exist who have not been endowed with this qualitatively superior disposition of mind and will. In sharp contrast, the prophet Jeremiah, writing only a few hundred years before Socrates, taught that, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it? (Jer. 17:9)” The differences between a biblical and Socratic understanding of human nature are radically different. Original sin is a foundational doctrine of Christianity which states that man was born into this world inheriting both the guilt, responsibility, and sinful nature of the first man Adam, who blatantly chose to disobey the covenant of works. On the other hand, intrinsic goodness is a foundational doctrine of Socratic thought and serves as the foundation on which all further education and volition is built. Second, Socrates and Paul differ because of their distinct emphases on the object of man’s intellection. Socrates asserts that the philosopher’s quest is to eventually “see the good.” For Paul, God is both the object of our knowledge and the moving force which enables our soul to desire knowledge. The pursuit of a Christian is to understand the hope of God’s calling, the riches of His inheritance, and the surpassing greatness of His power (Eph. 1:18). Abstract speculations about forms and ideas are given no attention in the writings of Scripture whereas in Plato, they are the pursuit of the philosopher and the primary object of his intellection.
If Socrates were alive today, he would probably be appalled by the apathetic attitudes toward education found within our schools. Media and television would be understood as the enemy of the individual and the society, functioning as a deceptive tool through which the mind is destroyed. Why would Socrates be so appalled? Because for Socrates, education is the necessary process which enables the best of mankind to “see the good” and enhance the prosperity of society. Education is the sun around which the planets of society, purposeful living, and proper thinking revolve. Without education, there is no enlightenment, and without enlightenment, man remains a prisoner chained to the dark cave of ignorance, deception, and blindness. Similarly, Paul would have agreed that education is necessary for the good of the community, specifically the church. Yet Jesus, Paul, and other Biblical writers taught that education is theological in nature and enabled through grace. May this study of Socrates and the Bible be an incentive to recover an understanding of the primary significance of the mind and the importance of education to the community and the church. Let us not be like Glaucon, whose reasoning led him to believe that education is solely individual in nature. Let us be like Socrates and Paul who understand the primary importance of education both to the individual and to the society.

Thomas Brooks on the New Birth...

There's something present within the writings of the Puritans that seems to always captivate and refresh me like no other Christian piece of literature can do. Along with the seemingly non-existent emphasis on the necessity of regeneration in our churches today comes the devastating result of a nominal Christianity which is worldly (in its true sense) in nature, and lacking in power. The Puritans were stalwarts of truth with regard to the necessity of understanding the new birth, and I personally found this quote encouraging. I pray that the many deluded and deceived "Christians" of our day would be reformed by the Spirit of God and come to an understanding of the importance of regeneration in the life of Christ's disciples. I pray this for my own heart as well.

"A man, be he old or young, learned or unlearned, high or low, rich or poor, knowing or ignorant, circumcised or uncircumsised,, under this form or that, a member of this church or that, let his disposition be never so high, and his conversation as to men never so blameless and harmless; yet, except this man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God....Except a man be first unmade, and new made up again; except he be of an old creature made a new creature, yea, a new creation of God, there is no seeing of the kingdom of God. The whole frame of man must be dissolved, and a new frame erected, else there is no heaven to be enjoyed. The kingdom of God is a divine kingdom, and there is no possession of it without a divine nature. A new head without a new heart, a new lip without a new life, will never bring a man to this kingdom of light. That man is for the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of God is for that man, that hath got the kingdom of God within him. If the kingdom of grace do not enter into thee here, thou shalt never enter into the kingdom of glory hereafter. A new heart is for a new heaven, and a new heaven is for a new heart."

-Thomas Brooks, The Crown and Glory of Christianity: The Necessity, Excelleny, Rarity, and Beauty of Holiness.

Spiritual Leaders v.s. Slaves of Jesus

"If you think you're a true leader then look behind you to see who is following. If no one is there, then you're no leader at all!"

I wonder how Jesus would have repsonded to that statement near the end of His life when everyone had abaondoned Him! Truth is, throughout the past few years, I've heard a number of alarming statements like these, made by sincere and godly people who honestly think that Jesus' only desire for us is to go out into the world and become "more effective ministry leaders." "Leadership" itself is a buzzword I hear all the time. The word can be found in purpose statement's, sermons, books, discussions, classes, etc. Supposedly, God has created every single individual with the one purpose or goal of become a more effective ministry leader. What I would like to propose is that 1) "leadership" as defined by many evangelicals today is nothing more than a modern construct imposed upon the Bible. "Leadership" is not a category found within the pages of the New Testament. Nehemiah is not a leadership manual, given to Christians so that they can become their own version of the world's CEO's and businessmen.

Pastor's, instead of tirelessly attempting to transform their church's into "more effective spiritual leaders" need to be teaching their church's about the beauty of Jesus' Lordship and our position as subjects and slaves to His Kingly rule and Priestly intercession. The modern world heavily emphasizes this concept of leadership as necessary and important. Donald Trump's popular show The Apprentice is a visible example of how many peoples' lives are supremely devoted to making it to the top and becoming succesful CEO's, businessmen, and millionaires. In our highly industrialized and utilitarian society, leadership is an important role. Businesses have to be run, money has to be made, and projects have to be completed. It is my contention that this huge emphasis on leadership and control within our culture has infected the church. Some people I know cannot distinguish between biblical teaching and modernity's death grip, lumping this secular idea of leadership into the same category of biblical teaching. Don't get me wrong: leadership properly defined is indeed Biblical. Pastors, Elders, Bishops, (whatever you prefer) are all called to lead the flock of God and to shepherd them tenderly until the bridegroom returns for His bide. Husbands, as a visible representations of Jesus, are commanded to humbly lead their wives in marriage. Yet what many people fail to realize is that every sheep in God's eyes, both pastor and laymen, husband and wife, deacon and sunday school teacher, worship pastor and teenager, are subject to His Lordship and are called to serve, love, worship, and obey the King who rules in their hearts and minds. Is there an emphasis on leadership in the Bible? If leadership is properly defined, yes. Are other more important concepts, insufficiently emphasized in today's church, explicitly and radically emphasized by the writers of the Bible? Absolutely! God has called some to serve in positions of leadership, yes. Yet I will say this. This non-sensical modern babble which states that the purpose of every Christian is to become a "more effective ministry leader" detracts from the glory of Christ, and instills a sinful and self-centered confidence in our abilities and skills to "lead." The New Testament never specifically calls all Christians to become "leaders" I can't help but think that if Jesus Christ were to have seen his disciples carrying around "Leadership Study Bibles", his reaction might have been similar to his reaction to the apostasy which took place in the temple. God calls us to be slaves of Jesus, not Christian businessmen who parade around talking about the latest leadership techniques. God calls us to be the subjects of His Son, not people who call themselves Christians yet scour the latest secular business manual for tips which can "transcend" the secular/religious divide. No, God has declared Jesus Christ our only sovereign leader, who sits and reigns in the heavens even now, ruling and reigning within the hearts of His flock. He is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Ressurection and the Life, the Glorious Leader-King who has purchased us with His blood, and who calls us to worship daily at His feet, basking in the beauty of His divine person. We're called to be slaves of Jesus (Rom. 6) not "spiritual leaders."

Salad Fingers?

Okay...So this guy named Josh came over to my dorm the other night to show me the most bizarre cartoon I have ever seen. It's called "Salad Fingers" and I have no idea what in the world the inent of these short little clips even is. I guess that the creator of "salad fingers" doesn't intend for his cartoon to be funny. Which makes it even stranger! I'd like to know what some of you think of this. I thought it was both hilarious, disturbing, entertatining, and very confusing!

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/salad+fingers+2/

Here I Stand...

On January 6, 1521 Martin Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms, a meeting ordered by Charles the V, Emporer of the Holy Roman Empire. Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, along with other books written against the Roman Catholic Church, had sparked such a controversy within the Roman Empire that he was ordered to appear before the Diet and recant his writings. On the first day, the chancellor of the Archbishop of Treves, told Luther to look upon the writings before him and agree to the fact that he had written them. Luther agreed. The chancellor asked Martin Luther to recant but Luther asked for more time saying that he wished to have time to prepare an answer that did not offend God’s Word. Luther was given 24 hours and he returned the next day to give his answer.

Chancellor: Martin Luther, yesterday you begged for a delay that has now expired. Now, therefore, reply to the question put by his majesty, who has behaved to you with so much mildness. Will you defend your books as a whole, or are you ready to disavow some of them?

Luther: Yesterday, two questions were put to me on behalf of his imperial majesty : the first, if I was the author of the books whose titles were enumerated; the second, if I would retract or defend the doctrine I had taught in them. To the first questions I then made answer, and I persevere in that reply. As for the second, I have written works on many different subjects. There are some in which I have treated of faith and good works, in a manner at once so pure, so simple, and so scriptural that even my adversaries, far from finding anything to censure in them, allow that these works are useful and worthy of being read by all pious men. If therefore I were to retract these, what should I do? I alone would abandon truths that friends and enemies approve, and I should oppose what the whole world glories in confessing. Second, I have written books against the papacy, in which I have attacked those who, by their false doctrine, their evil lives, or their scandalous example, afflict the Christian world and destroy both body and soul. If I were to retract these works, I should thus become a vile cloak to cover and conceal every kind of malice and tyranny. Lastly, I have written books against individuals who desired to defend the Roman tyranny and to destroy the faith. I do not recant these writings.

Chancellor: Martin Luther, you have not answered the question put to you. You were not summoed hither to call in question the decisions of the councils. You are required to give a clear and precise answer. Will you or will you not retract?

Luther: Since your most serene majesty and your high mightiness require from me a clear, simple, and precise answer, I will give you one, and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the councils, because it is clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand; I can do no other; may God help me. Amen.

Chancellor: If you do not retract, the emperor and the states of the empire will consult what course to adopt against an incorrigible heretic.

Luther: May God be my helper; for I can retract nothing