Via Jeremy Shank.
Daily Archives: 15 Nov 2014
Bullinger applies [I Cor 13:]9 (“we know in part, and we prophesy in part,” NIV), to less talented preachers who find their command of the languages defective. They are encouraged to continue their preaching ministry and to relate every part of the Bible to the principle of loving God and one’s neighbor “as the sole scope of the sacred books.”  As long as they do not lack the gift of love, the Lord will not allow them to deviate gravely from the truth. Therefore, no one should despise less educated brothers, “who are taught by love, who do not trespass against love, and who judge and explain everything according to the rule of love.” 
A useful reminder indeed.
 Comm. 1 Cor. 13:8–10. HBW 3.6, 404: “Qui enim charitate imbutus est, sacra syncere tractat, singula ad charitatem cum dei tum proximi ceu unicum sacrorum librorum scopum dirigit.”
 Comm. 1 Cor. 13:8–10. HBW 3.6, 404: “Nam nemo unus omnia potest nec omnia omnibus deus dedit, attamen, si charitas nobis non desit, una non patietur nos perniciosius aberrare.”
 Daniel Timmerman’s forthcoming volume on Heinrich Bullinger.
WHOEVER HAS EARS TO HEAR, LET HIM HEAR A REALLY FAT, GROSS, CORPULENT—A THOROUGHLY PAPIST—LIE, FOR THUS IT SAYS IN THE CANON LAW: DIST. 96, C. CONSTANTINUS
While he was still Leo’s steward, this Clement decided to satisfy his greed (which was impossible) and issued a bull requiring the clergy to pay a tenth of their income; the prominent and rich secular people, a twentieth; and the common man, a fiftieth, for his treasury against the Turks. Oh, how great was his earnestness against the Turks—that is, in order to drain all the world dry! For at that time there were people who reflected on this and concluded that, if these dues had continued for three years, not a penny would have remained in Germany. But the jackass sang his song too high and thought the Germans would not notice. Nonetheless, it was rejected at the Diet of Augsburg under Maximilian in 1518.
However, he did not stop; when he became pope, he thought up another little trick to drain the world dry. Thus came the bull he called Mons fidei, in which he offered all the kings to pay interest from his own papal treasury in order to raise large sums of money against the Turks—this is how immensely seriously the pope took war against the Turks, that is, collecting the kings’ money. But this would not succeed. Due to his great villainy and wickedness he had no luck at emptying the world of its money, even though it was rumored that he was a great bastard, the natural son of his own sister, and the saying goes: “Bastard children are lucky.” In Italy they claim also that in his entire life he was never baptized. This is why he is worthy to be pope above all others at this time, when no godly man should be pope or cardinal, but instead the worst scoundrels on earth now belong to these estates. As they themselves admit, in Rome are the dregs of the worst scoundrels on earth.*
I’ve never understood why Luther was so hesitant to share his true feelings…
*Preface, Marginal Glosses, and Afterword to One of the High Articles of the Papist Faith, Called the Donation of Constantine [ca. 800], Translated by Dr. Martin Luther against the Postponed Council of Mantua: 1537., Luther’s Works (Vol. 60, pp. 176–177).
On the left is the late Reverend Dr Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, formerly of the École Biblique in Jerusalem. On the right is Peter Ustinov, whose many acting roles included Batiatus in Spartacus and King Herod in the 1977 English-Italian miniseries, Jesus of Nazareth.
We wonder if, by some chance, they might be related?
Via a facebook friend, D.F.
Boy this sounds great:
The workshop will focus on conceptualizations and transformations of eschatology in the era of Reformation/ Counter-Reformation. The aim of the colloquium is to ask to what extent the age of confessionalization has an impact on the differentiation of theological doctrines concerning the end of time, final judgment, salvation and the kingdom come.
This guy is everywhere. Every. Where. I knew him when…
Whenever some evil reprobate takes a gun and kills a lot of people- or a few people – a segment of the population expresses outrage and demands stricter enforcement laws (and I’m one of them). But whenever some frat boy or sorority girl dies of alcohol poisoning… crickets from the same crowd. Why is that? Why are those who object to murder by gun not equally outraged by murder by alcohol?
Let’s think about the stats. According to the government, Nearly 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol related causes annually, making it the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States.
That’s a lot of dead people thanks to alcohol. On the other hand, according to the CDC, Number of deaths by firearms: 11,068.
I’m terrible at math but even I know that 88,000 is more than 11,000. So, again, where’s the outrage? Where are the calls to limit access to booze? Where are the sighs for locks on liquor cabinets?
And if we wanted to we could also talk about abortion and the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of children murdered by their own parents every year. There’s scant outrage about that as well.
What we have, then, in America, is a boatload of hypocrisy and a slant to a preference to ideology. Gun opponents probably have no problem with abortion or booze. Gun advocates too probably have no problem with booze though they might with abortion.
In other words, and let me state this bluntly: it isn’t lives with which various advocates of certain laws are concerned- it is their pet ideology. And that’s reprehensible.
Our country will NEVER be what it could be, never fulfill its potential, until and unless we come to value every life and do our best to protect our citizens from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.
Or, we can just watch our young die in abortion clinics and frat houses and schoolyards by abortion and booze and idiots with guns.
[For the record, I wish abortion were limited only to cases where the mother’s life is in danger. I wish booze were accessible only in bars where adults would be carded and no one was allowed to have it at home where young people can obtain it and I wish every liquor store in the country were shuttered. And I wish that guns were limited to the purposes of hunting and the police and military. Check out your gun from a community locker, go hunting, and return your gun to said locker. But I’m an unrealistic idealist].
Emidio Campi recently lectured on Bullinger and today he sent me the powerpoint of that lecture, suggesting I might find some of the slides useful to share here with you. And boy, did I! (And if you would, please don’t reproduce them or post them without Emidio’s permission. With thanks).
Here you go: