Is this quote from Luther?

Davidius · #1 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 01:04 AM

A friend of mine has this quote listed on his Facebook profile, supposedly written by Martin Luther:

Quote:

God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone - but also on trees and in the flowers and clouds and stars.

Did Luther really write this? Does it not confuse the proper distinction between general and special revelation?

Pergamum · #2 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 01:12 AM

This sort of thing is common with the Puritans also who wrote that God had given us two books; the book of nature and the book of revelation.

Davidius · #3 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

This sort of thing is common with the Puritans also who wrote that God had given us two books; the book of nature and the book of revelation.

But I was under the impression that the Gospel is only available in the "book of revelation," that only enough information as is necessary to ensure one's "lack of excuse" is available in the book of nature.

If the Gospel is written in the clouds and stars, then we don't need the Bible and we don't need preachers.

Augusta · #4 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 01:32 AM

There was a similar Luther quote in Modern Reformation:

Our Lord has written the promise of the resurrection, not in books alone but in every leaf in spring-time.

I agree though that saying the gospel is in nature is stretching it. Luther has said some things that were off. This would be one of them I think. Resurrection shown in spring time when everything comes back to life is not out there. I don't think you can get THE resurrection from it but you get the concept sort of.

DMcFadden · #5 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 02:30 AM

David,

The phrase you give does not occur in any of Luther's Complete Works. I looked for it a couple of different ways and could not locate it.

biblicalthought · #6 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 02:30 AM

Davidius, I searched all of Luther's life works and did not find that quote. I am one of those new age hip dudes that have gone digital - library and all. The English translation that I have searched is the 55 Volume American Edition by Fortress Press/Concordia Publishing House (Jaroslav Pelikan & Helmut T. Lehmann GenEds.). But because I haven't found it doesn't mean that it isn't there. Sometimes translators will choose different words, and unless you search words or phrases with precision it won't show up.

Quote:

But I was under the impression that the Gospel is only available in the "book of revelation," that only enough information as is necessary to ensure one's "lack of excuse" is available in the book of nature. If the Gospel is written in the clouds and stars, then we don't need the Bible and we don't need preachers.

You are spot-on my brother! Natural Theology is a sham.

P.S. I haven't made the total changeover from paper to electronic. I still carry about 700-900 volumes in print. Not everything is available in electronic format - yet!

Pergamum · #7 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 06:14 AM

The knowledge from reason and nature often reinforces what is seen in Scripture. Jonathan Edwards devotes many if his miscellenies to reflections on nature and how they mirror spiritual truths. No doubt Luther and Edwards both believed that the Scripture was the source of revelation.

Davidius · #8 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biblicalthought

Davidius, I searched all of Luther's life works and did not find that quote. I am one of those new age hip dudes that have gone digital - library and all. The English translation that I have searched is the 55 Volume American Edition by Fortress Press/Concordia Publishing House (Jaroslav Pelikan & Helmut T. Lehmann GenEds.). But because I haven't found it doesn't mean that it isn't there. Sometimes translators will choose different words, and unless you search words or phrases with precision it won't show up.

Quote:

But I was under the impression that the Gospel is only available in the "book of revelation," that only enough information as is necessary to ensure one's "lack of excuse" is available in the book of nature. If the Gospel is written in the clouds and stars, then we don't need the Bible and we don't need preachers.

You are spot-on my brother! Natural Theology is a sham.

P.S. I haven't made the total changeover from paper to electronic. I still carry about 700-900 volumes in print. Not everything is available in electronic format - yet!

What a handy resource to have. Could you try looking for the similar quote that Augusta said she saw in Modern Reformation?

Quote:

Our Lord has written the promise of the resurrection, not in books alone but in every leaf in spring-time.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #9 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 12:04 PM

, but I just cannot read books and articles on computer screen. I have to read out of books.

Me Died Blue · #10 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

This sort of thing is common with the Puritans also who wrote that God had given us two books; the book of nature and the book of revelation.

But I was under the impression that the Gospel is only available in the "book of revelation," that only enough information as is necessary to ensure one's "lack of excuse" is available in the book of nature.

If the Gospel is written in the clouds and stars, then we don't need the Bible and we don't need preachers.

I definitely tend to agree with you here; namely, that the Law/Gospel distinction has a direct application to the general/special revelation distinction. WCF 1.1 seems to support that as well: "Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation," after which the divines proceed to speak of none other than the Scriptures to answer the implicit question of what *is* sufficient to give such knowledge.

JBaldwin · #11 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse Romans 1:18-20

This passage from Romans says to me that there is some revelation of God in nature. It is not Gospel, but God Himself, His eternal power and divine nature are seen in the things He created. This is what I think of when I think of natural revelation.

biblicalthought · #12 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 06:35 PM

Here's my take: Paul is establishing man's universal need for salvation. He's saying that no one is excused. He first addresses the gross pagans; the barbarians, as well as the moral pagans (ch. 2). He's basicall saying that all false religion leads to false worship which leads to idolatry which leads to false living. The presence or absence of special revelation doesn’t change the predicament of man – his need for salvation; he’s a sinner and he blows it regardless of whatever light he has - he's without excuse.

fredtgreco · #13 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 06:44 PM

This is systematics 101 type stuff. Here is a question and answer that I prepared for training materials:

Quote:

What is the “light of nature” or “general revelation?” Is it sufficient for salvation? Why or why not?

The “light of nature” or “general revelation” is the way in which God reveals himself to men through His creation. The world itself shows that God exists and that He is a God of order (Psalm 19). Man’s conscience, which shows him right from wrong, points to an absolute source of right and wrong (Romans 1:19-20, 2:14-15). This revelation shows man that he is not sovereign or independent, leaving him without excuse if he doesn’t believe in God (Romans 2:1), but it is not sufficient for salvation. This is because creation itself does not reveal to man his sinful nature, his inability to please God, or the provision that God has made for sin in Christ; therefore God has so designed it that the salvation of men will be accomplished by special revelation.

Davidius · #14 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

This is systematics 101 type stuff. Here is a question and answer that I prepared for training materials:

Quote:

What is the “light of nature” or “general revelation?” Is it sufficient for salvation? Why or why not?

The “light of nature” or “general revelation” is the way in which God reveals himself to men through His creation. The world itself shows that God exists and that He is a God of order (Psalm 19). Man’s conscience, which shows him right from wrong, points to an absolute source of right and wrong (Romans 1:19-20, 2:14-15). This revelation shows man that he is not sovereign or independent, leaving him without excuse if he doesn’t believe in God (Romans 2:1), but it is not sufficient for salvation. This is because creation itself does not reveal to man his sinful nature, his inability to please God, or the provision that God has made for sin in Christ; therefore God has so designed it that the salvation of men will be accomplished by special revelation.

My original concern was more over the source of the quote. It doesn't seem like Luther would make this mistake.

fredtgreco · #15 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

This is systematics 101 type stuff. Here is a question and answer that I prepared for training materials:

Quote:

What is the “light of nature” or “general revelation?” Is it sufficient for salvation? Why or why not?

The “light of nature” or “general revelation” is the way in which God reveals himself to men through His creation. The world itself shows that God exists and that He is a God of order (Psalm 19). Man’s conscience, which shows him right from wrong, points to an absolute source of right and wrong (Romans 1:19-20, 2:14-15). This revelation shows man that he is not sovereign or independent, leaving him without excuse if he doesn’t believe in God (Romans 2:1), but it is not sufficient for salvation. This is because creation itself does not reveal to man his sinful nature, his inability to please God, or the provision that God has made for sin in Christ; therefore God has so designed it that the salvation of men will be accomplished by special revelation.

My original concern was more over the source of the quote. It doesn't seem like Luther would make this mistake.

Yes, David. Sorry that I was not clear. My comment was not directed at you, but rather to buttress your correct concern about the substance of the quote.

moral necessity · #16 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

A friend of mine has this quote listed on his Facebook profile, supposedly written by Martin Luther:

Quote:

God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone - but also on trees and in the flowers and clouds and stars.

Did Luther really write this? Does it not confuse the proper distinction between general and special revelation?

I'm not sure if Luther wrote this or not. But, the context of the statement is of the utmost importance. God does display the gospel outside of scripture, for God himself resides outside of scripture. His love and glory exist beyond such bounds, and so they can be readily seen in all of his creation, yet not to many. As we progress along through the journey of life, we tend to look back to see many parallels and similarities of the work of Christ in our behalf. We see Israel as a type or figure of the Church. We see Canaan and the enemies they were to overthrow as if it were our natures and the sin within us that must be overthrown. We see the seasons as representing the times of God's blessing and withdrawal from us. And so the comparisons go...

So, to me it does not confuse the proper distinction between general and special revelation. Yet, I understand that it might for some.

Blessings!