Conversion Stories - John Calvin, Martin Luther, Menno Simons, St. Ignatius Loyola

For a Reformation History Class I have to read, compare and contrast the autobiographical conversions of Luther, Calvin, Menno, and Ignatius. I don't think our Prof picked the best sources, but nonetheless it's interesting reading them after my re-conversion (conversion to Catholicism, rather than conversion to Christ).

Menno Simons: growing up in a half-Mennonite background I have to say this guy stuck out like a sore thumb. He is so legalistic and self-righteous that it amazes me he could ever be said to have a share in the gospel of grace and faith alone (Maybe they should exclude the Anabaptists). He ends up describing how awesome he is as a biblical expositor and mentions that after conversing with Luther, Bucer, and Bullinger on infant baptism that they are all 'unbiblical' and foolish. He also notes that every Christian MUST be a pacifist, etc. Didn't like him at all. He ends his story by accusing the Catholics of being unbiblical because they allow repentant sinners to have communion, and that the Catholics should expel all "unrighteous persons" from their midst. ....seriously, does this guy even believe in imputed righteousness?!

Calvin: He can't seem to speak two sentences without mentioning the bondage of the will, everything he says about himself is in the passive voice. "I was forced by the divine will" I was "compelled against my will", the "violent hand of Heaven was upon me". Like we get it: you believe in predestination. He also uses the predestination thing to excuse himself from the guilt of executing heretics (he refers to them in the plural, so it makes me wonder if he only ever killed that unitarian doctor). The funniest part was when he made his exile from Geneva look like an accident. All in all, better than Simons, more humble for sure.

Ignatius Loyola: Here is where no one can call me biased. I think Ignatius was kind of dumb. For the sake of beauty he endures greatly painful surgery and then claims this pain was 'suffering for Christ'. He's basically converted by a Marian Ghost and a few Spanish hagiographies, and he has the arrogance to say that he wanted to out-saint St. Francis and St. Dominic (thus he would try to show his Jesuits better than the Franciscans and Dominicans). Kind of a hot-headed, theologically-ignorant, Spaniard. But he did find some good friends like St. Francis Xavier, and St. Robert Bellarmine, so I'll give him that, but from this reading he seemed to be my least favourite Jesuit.

Martin Luther: There's something about Luther, he's someone you just gotta love, or at least love to hate. While I do think it's ridiculous how he treated his prince like a bodyguard and glorified Church-State relations to the point of Caesaro-Papism just because it suited him, I still must say he is an awesome figure. He describes his holiness as a Catholic monk and his entire conversion seems to have nothing to do with "becoming a righteous Christian" but rather accepting Christ's righteousness and leaving it and simply being joyful about that. Even if he is a heretic, I think I'll always admire Luther in some ways (if nothing else, for giving me attacks on Reformed & Anabaptist Theology/Sacramentology)

St. Ignatius of Antioch again

I already read and went over another one of St. Ignatius' letters and his strong Ecclesiology shone through. A friend is meeting me tomorrow because she is Catholic and dating a Reformed Protestant and wants to show him the proof of the Real (physical) Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the Early Church. So I quickly thought of the Apostolic Fathers and it amazes me how overwhelmingly Catholic they are. I just began reading St. Ignatius' letter to the Trallians and he writes almost immediately:

"without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ" Ch.2

"In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion" Ch. 3 - here he even links the Episcopate to an assembly of Apostles verifying the doctrine of Apostolic succession and he says apart from the Bishops there is no Church. Wow... this man was quite possibly St. John's Disciple. Theodoret writes that St. Peter himself appointed him as bishop of Antioch. He says here that there can be no Church without the bishop and that we are to obey them as we would Christ. Fairly strong attack on Presbyterianism and Congregationalism...

mmmm.....apostolic authority....nothing more delicious (just joking St. Ignatius)

" continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience." Ch. 7 - he says that obeying these things will cure the 'poison of heresy'

Then I read part of his epistle to Polycarp and he writes again:
"Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God!" Ch. 6

Wow he really isn't budging on this submission to the Church bit. I really am having a hard time understanding where this divine mandate of broken communion and 'reformation' comes into play. If the "Reformation" saught to restore early Christianity where is the Ecclesiology which St. Ignatius can't seem to get rid of.

Finally I moved onto his Epistle to the Philadelphians, and he opens with:

"to the Church of God... which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of 'Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit." Greeting

Man this guy doesn't shut up about Christ's establishment of the Bishops and their security and authority etc. But then here comes the icing on the cake:

"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]" Ch. 3

Wow... if anyone follows a schismatic they are damned. . . St. Ignatius is like a 1st century John MacArthur. These are strong words against denominations outside of the historic episcopate *cough - non-Anglican/Orthodox/Catholic cough*.

Moving on he continues to stress Ecclesiology but also throws in some Real Presence stuff:
"Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons" ch. 4

" Yet it is not I, but Jesus Christ, for whose sake being bound I fear the more, inasmuch as I am not yet perfect. But your prayer to God shall make me perfect" Ch. 5 - Completed Sanctification anyone? - a little purgatory proof as I call it. He seems to be under the 'delusion' that sanctification must be completed...no imputed righteousness here.

"But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father." Ch. 7 - Man now he's saying that the Holy Spirit is proclaiming his message "DO NOTHING WITHOUT THE BISHOP" - we get it St. Ignatius, shout it at the people talking about a Priesthood of all Believers.

" For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop. " Ch. 8 - Again in the Early Church division is a HUGE sin. There isn't alot of Ecumenical dialogue, just the orthodox and the heretics.

ok there were even a few more references to honoring bishops, presbyters, and deacons but I spared you.

Thus in conclusion as I read the faith of the Apostolic Fathers I am once again reaffirmed that no man has the authority to go against the Church Christ established and there is no 'invisible' body theory for the ancients, just a visible communion under the bishops. Lord have mercy on everyone else, and on those beneath the bishops. This is the catholic faith, once delivered to the saints.

Pope as Anti-Christ or the Church as God's Instrument?

"Surely anybody's commonsense would tell him that enthusiasts who only met through their common enthusiasm for a leader whom they loved, would not instantly rush away to establish everything that he hated." - G.K. Chesterton on the History of the Catholic Church (critique of Evangelical theory of the universal apostasy of the Church)

"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" - St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

"The authority of these [ecumenical] councils in the decision of all points of controversy was supreme and final. Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church, his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto et nobis. Constantine the Great, in a circular letter to the churches, styles the decrees of the Nicene council a divine command; a phrase, however, in reference to which the abuse of the word divine, in the language of the Byzantine despots, must not be forgotten. Athanasius says, with reference to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ: "What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides forever." The council of Chalcedon pronounced the decrees of the Nicene fathers unalterable statutes, since God himself had spoken through them. The council of Ephesus, in the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, uses the formula: "The Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, determines through this most holy council." Pope Leo speaks of an "irretractabilis consensus" of the council of Chalcedon upon the doctrine of the person of Christ. Pope Gregory the Great even placed the first four councils, which refuted and destroyed respectively the heresies and impieties of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, on a level with the four canonical Gospels. In like manner Justinian puts the dogmas of the first four councils on the same footing with the Holy Scriptures, and their canons by the side of laws of the realm." - Philip Schaff endorsing conciliar infallibility (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, from the revised fifth edition of 1910, 340-342

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy [error] to have entrance." (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

Many Protestants accuse the Roman Catholic (and every other rite of the Catholic Church) Church of giving the Pope 'too much power' and as "Anti-Christ" for he usurps the position of Christ. However what if Christ GAVE St. Peter this role. What if Christ said "On this rock will I build my Church", what if Christ said "Peter feed my Lambs", what if Christ gave him authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23), to lead and teach the Church (acts 2)... He did say and do those things. So to put up a dichotemy between Christ and the Roman Catholic Church is impossible, he promised both of them would work together.

The Church Fathers taught and died for the Church, the ONE Church, the Catholic faith. How on earth can I desert that just because John Calvin came along and thought the Church read Romans wrong? What kind of logic is that?

Let me end with this:

"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" -St. Irenaeus(Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

So is the Catholic Church usurping Christ's role to distribute all grace? or are Calvinist's denying Christ's claim to establish a Church which distributes all grace? The Fathers side with Catholicism.

St. Ignatius and Bishops

St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-117AD *at the latest) was a bishop in the VERY early Church, he was the 3rd in line of succession to the apostles themselves as bishop of Antioch meaning that the church there was ruled by St. Peter then Evodius, then Ignatius, he was a friend of Polycarp (a disciple/successor of St. John himself, who lived with and was taught by Christ).

All this to say, he was in very early church history. By the end of the second century there were bishops over the priesthood/presbyteries in all areas of Christendom.

"Plainly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself" - St. Ignatius (epistle to the Ephesians 6:1.)

"It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil." - Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 9

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. " -Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8

In the beginning of Acts we see Judas' place in the apostles filled in with the Consecration of Matthias in his place. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Traditional Anglican teaching say that this is the first consecration of a bishop, and thus has the line of bishops proceeded until this very day, and that in essence they are the successors to the apostles, not equal in power or authority, but authorized as their successors, and as such have the authority to cast out demons (authorize exorcisms), interpret Scripture (church councils/ecumenical councils, as well as things like the Lambeth conference), discipline the church and excommunicate (see Catholic bishops and Pro-Choice politicians), and appoint priests.

St. Irenaeus said that the bishop had "charisma veritatis certum" - that is "an infallible charism (gift) of truth", and St. Cyrian... well we all know what he thought about them. And clearly St. Ignatius challenges the idea that we can have a valid priesthood/pastorate, Eucharist/Communion, or any assurance of truth without being subordinate to a bishop in the line of the apostles. So the question is -for one who respects the Tradition of the Early Church- Catholic? Orthodox? Anglican? (or European Lutheran)?

sorry Presbyterianism, and Congregationalism, you've been put on notice! (as St. Stephen Colbert would say)