Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[MaryT777]

For the record, Edwards is currently on the faculty of the Harvard Divinity School. His bio from their website states:

“Education: PhD, Stanford University

Mark U. Edwards, Jr., became Professor of the History of Christianity at HDS in 1987, after teaching at Wellesley College and Purdue University. He was at HDS until July 1994, when he became the ninth president of St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota. In 2000 Edwards stepped down from the St. Olaf presidency and moved to New Hampshire. He returned to HDS in May 2003.

Edwards has written four books and numerous articles on Martin Luther and the German Reformation. The most recent book, entitled Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther (University of California Press, 1994; reprint, Fortress Press, 2005), deals with the West’s first “mass media campaign” and Luther’s pivotal role as both subject and object in the struggle for the hearts and minds of sixteenth-century Christians.”

Rather than the two books by Edwards on Luther as you suggested, he has actually written four. Since I only own three of them, I apparently need to obtain the other one.

First of all, pigs don’t have fingers and so they are not well equipped to learn how to play music. I would like to know though who you think the ‘pig’ is here? And since we are on the subject of animals, Arthur Cushman McGiffert records Luther as having made the following comment in regards to his well-known and self-admitted ‘polemical style’:

“I cannot deny that I have been more vehement than is seemly. But since they knew then, they ought not to have stirred up the dog.” “Martin Luther”, pg. 153-4

Here we learn that Luther believed that his abuse of his opponents, calling them liars and agents of Satan and the like, SHOULD have caused them to cease their criticism of him.

Edwin, do you personally believe that people should have been so concerned about Luther’s attacks on them that they should have halted their criticisms?

As you might well imagine, I do not. In fact, I think that that kind of attitude is all the more deserving of increased criticism. It seems to me that Luther wanted to be the ‘big dog’ in charge and wanted everyone else to cower. Basically he wanted them to SHUT UP. As you know, the literature is full of comments about Luther’s ‘polemical style’.

You may choose to disagree Edwin, but given Luther’s treatment of his opponents, I don’t think Lutherans have a leg to stand on whatsoever in complaining about anybody’s ‘polemical style’ in their criticism of Luther. That seems to me to be extraordinarily hypocritical.

What I appreciate about Edwards is that he honestly represents the historical facts, revealing the real Luther in the process, and yet he still remains a faithful Lutheran. Obviously he has found some way to reconcile the historical Luther with his belief in Lutheranism and it’s foundations. He does not duck the tough issues but reports them in what appears to be an unbiased manner. I find that admirable.

You claim that this is not fair. I disagree. Is there or is there not room for differing opinions here Edwin?

What I think is not fair are the representations of Luther, including a lot here on CA, which are, well - ‘overly generous’. I would think that you would believe that it is important to understand the actual history of the early Reformation. I also don’t think that you would disagree that the popular history of Luther has been anything but ‘overly generous’. There really needs to be a ‘counterbalance’ that DOES move the needle back toward what is in truth, actually fair. The ‘counterbalance’ that I provide is made up of things that have been tremendously ‘under-reported’.

Those things which are ‘overly generous’ to Luther are, in reality, unfair to the Catholic Church because they are ‘overly ungenerous’ to the Church.

Topper,
I’d say on the faculty of Harvard Divinity School is “currently active” status in regard to current professional endeavors.
Mary.

 

[Contarini]

Topper17;12733026 quoting the Harvard website:

Edwards has written four books and numerous articles on Martin Luther and the German Reformation.

I stand corrected. He wrote two particularly famous books. But four books is still not that prolific. That’s not to play him down–he’s a very important scholar. My problem isn’t with Edwards but with your polemical use of Edwards.

First of all, pigs don’t have fingers and so they are not well equipped to learn how to play music. I would like to know though who you think the ‘pig’ is here?

The Lutherans

And since we are on the subject of animals, Arthur Cushman McGiffert records Luther as having made the following comment in regards to his well-known and self-admitted ‘polemical style’:

And there you go again.

How about this: state clearly what the thesis is that your endless quotes and examples are supposed to prove. Because to my eyes all you are doing is repeating over and over again things that no informed person would disagree with, to no constructive purpose.

We all know that Luther wasn’t a very nice person in controversy. And your point is? What conclusion are you drawing from this? How is knowledge of this fact supposed to affect people? Most of the things you say aren’t particularly controversial, but you are clearly trying to make some kind of polemical point by saying them.

And just stop attacking this straw man of “Protestants who don’t want to hear the truth about Luther.” Even if it’s correct (and sometimes it is), your repetitive methods aren’t going to accomplish anything except to antagonize people (hence my remark about “annoying the pig”). Note that I say “your repetitive methods.” Sure, the first time you say this stuff you may shock people who really haven’t heard it before into looking critically at their heritage. Whether that’s the right way to go about it I rather doubt, but that’s your business. It’s certainly legitimate to inform people who really don’t know how nasty Luther could be.

But that’s not what you are dealing with at this point on this forum. What you are dealing with is the fact that people know about Luther’s “dark side” and don’t draw the conclusions you want them to draw.

So how about a clear post in which you state explicitly what you think people ought to conclude about Luther, and list the specific reasons why they ought to draw it. Save the citations and quotations to back up your specific points if people challenge them.

Quotation is not argument. Citation supports the argument. You have to make an argument first. And after all these posts of yours, your argument remains rather hazy.

Edwin, do you personally believe that people should have been so concerned about Luther’s attacks on them that they should have halted their criticisms?

Why would I believe that?

You may choose to disagree Edwin, but given Luther’s treatment of his opponents, I don’t think Lutherans have a leg to stand on whatsoever in complaining about anybody’s ‘polemical style’ in their criticism of Luther. That seems to me to be extraordinarily hypocritical.

Nothing hypocritical at all, if they aren’t defending Luther’s own style.

What I think is not fair are the representations of Luther, including a lot here on CA, which are, well - ‘overly generous’. I would think that you would believe that it is important to understand the actual history of the early Reformation. I also don’t think that you would disagree that the popular history of Luther has been anything but ‘overly generous’.

Among Protestants and to some extent among secular people. Not among Catholics

But since our culture is largely Protestant or post-Protestant, sure.

There really needs to be a ‘counterbalance’ that DOES move the needle back toward what is in truth, actually fair. The ‘counterbalance’ that I provide is made up of things that have been tremendously ‘under-reported’.

Not on this forum. This is a Catholic forum. Luther bashing is one o the most popular sports.

By all means go do your “balancing” in places where Luther is adulated. That’s not what you are doing here.

Those things which are ‘overly generous’ to Luther are, in reality, unfair to the Catholic Church because they are ‘overly ungenerous’ to the Church.

Sure, if you mean the standard “Whig” narrative. It drives me nuts too. I’m supposed to write comments on a documentary film script produced by my wife’s employers (for whom I’m a consultant) on the Reformation, and I don’t know how even to start. They have tried to be fair, but their idea of being fair is to throw in occasional quotes about the tragic consequences of the Reformation into a script that is still basically the Whig narrative. I want a different narrative.

And that’s what is lacking in your “counterbalance.” Give us a narrative. Don’t just throw out unpleasant facts about Luther as if they are going to be highly significant in and of themselves.

And when your narrative gets criticized, be open to the possibility that people are criticizing it because it really may be just as unfair as the one you’re arguing against, not just because they are overly defensive of Luther.

Edwin

 

[MaryT777]

I stand corrected. He wrote two particularly famous books. But four books is still not that prolific. That’s not to play him down–he’s a very important scholar. My problem isn’t with Edwards but with your polemical use of Edwards.

The Lutherans

And there you go again.

How about this: state clearly what the thesis is that your endless quotes and examples are supposed to prove. Because to my eyes all you are doing is repeating over and over again things that no informed person would disagree with, to no constructive purpose.

We all know that Luther wasn’t a very nice person in controversy. And your point is? What conclusion are you drawing from this? How is knowledge of this fact supposed to affect people? Most of the things you say aren’t particularly controversial, but you are clearly trying to make some kind of polemical point by saying them.

And just stop attacking this straw man of “Protestants who don’t want to hear the truth about Luther.” Even if it’s correct (and sometimes it is), your repetitive methods aren’t going to accomplish anything except to antagonize people (hence my remark about “annoying the pig”). Note that I say “your repetitive methods.” Sure, the first time you say this stuff you may shock people who really haven’t heard it before into looking critically at their heritage. Whether that’s the right way to go about it I rather doubt, but that’s your business. It’s certainly legitimate to inform people who really don’t know how nasty Luther could be.

But that’s not what you are dealing with at this point on this forum. What you are dealing with is the fact that people know about Luther’s “dark side” and don’t draw the conclusions you want them to draw.

So how about a clear post in which you state explicitly what you think people ought to conclude about Luther, and list the specific reasons why they ought to draw it. Save the citations and quotations to back up your specific points if people challenge them.

Quotation is not argument. Citation supports the argument. You have to make an argument first. And after all these posts of yours, your argument remains rather hazy.

Why would I believe that?

You may choose to disagree Edwin, but given Luther’s treatment of his opponents, I don’t think Lutherans have a leg to stand on whatsoever in complaining about anybody’s ‘polemical style’ in their criticism of Luther. That seems to me to be extraordinarily hypocritical.

So Luther comments are not allowed but Topper bashing is? YAWN! It’s a gettin’ old. Plus there is no Luther “bashing” it’s all his quotes. His words speak volumes.

Mary.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: In response to your #741 post. just want to say thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. History show us our past and allows us to see the causes and mistakes as well as the good of the time and how man thought at a point in time. Often said “To ignore history is prone to repeat it.”

                 What gets me is how Luther was so unchristian and un-Christ like in his remarks with those and to those who disagreed with his teachings and theology. It seems to me that all who disagreed with him, he took it as a personal attack on his person. It also seems to me that instead of defending and debating in a civilized manor his teachings and theologies, Luther decided upon a path of vicious, disrespectful and violent and rude attacks, totally different from what Christ and the Apostles taught.

                    St James said:" Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for a man man's anger does not fulfill God's justice. If a man who does not control his tongue imagines that he is devout; he is self-deceived; his worship is pointless." Something apparently Luther did not ascribe to as seen from much of his writings against the CC and those opposing him.

                   Luther claiming some special authority was nothing more than a self- appointed one. So I understand what you posted. It seems to me others had the or have followed suit in thinking the same way that they to have or had some special authority to decide religious beliefs one is to hold; different from what had been taught for some 1500 years.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Topper: In response to your #741 post. just want to say thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. History show us our past and allows us to see the causes and mistakes as well as the good of the time and how man thought at a point in time. Often said “To ignore history is prone to repeat it.”

                 What gets me is how Luther was so unchristian and un-Christ like in his remarks with those and to those who disagreed with his teachings and theology. It seems to me that all who disagreed with him, he took it as a personal attack on his person. It also seems to me that instead of defending and debating in a civilized manor his teachings and theologies, Luther decided upon a path of vicious, disrespectful and violent and rude attacks, totally different from what Christ and the Apostles taught.

                    St James said:" Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for a man man's anger does not fulfill God's justice. If a man who does not control his tongue imagines that he is devout; he is self-deceived; his worship is pointless." Something apparently Luther did not ascribe to as seen from much of his writings against the CC and those opposing him.

                   Luther claiming some special authority was nothing more than a self- appointed one. So I understand what you posted. It seems to me others had the or have followed suit in thinking the same way that they to have or had some special authority to decide religious beliefs one is to hold; different from what had been taught for some 1500 years.

Hi Spina,
In many ways, I agree. Think about it, Luther’s writing against some of his opponents was incredibly harsh, unnecessarily so, and its so confusing because he also writes in his Small Catechism regarding the Eighth Commandment:

The Eighth Commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?–Answer.

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.

How could he have ignored his own insightful writing the way he did. OTOH, what a magnificent and moving understanding of the Eighth Commandment.

As one can see, Luther is a complex, and at times confusing and contradictory figure. Lutherans recognize this, and give thanks to God for forgiveness of sins, and for Luther’s remarkable writings, such as that above.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,
In many ways, I agree. Think about it, Luther’s writing against some of his opponents was incredibly harsh, unnecessarily so, and its so confusing because he also writes in his Small Catechism regarding the Eighth Commandment:

How could he have ignored his own insightful writing the way he did. OTOH, what a magnificent and moving understanding of the Eighth Commandment.

As one can see, Luther is a complex, and at times confusing and contradictory figure. Lutherans recognize this, and give thanks to God for forgiveness of sins, and for Luther’s remarkable writings, such as that above.

Jon

Hi Jon: I have to agree with you on some of your points. Another thing that gets me is that he could write some very nice things music etc. then turn around so to speak and write the most vicious and violent attacks against those who did not agree with him. it is like he was or is two different persons.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon: I have to agree with you on some of your points. Another thing that gets me is that he could write some very nice things music etc. then turn around so to speak and write the most vicious and violent attacks against those who did not agree with him. it is like he was or is two different persons.

So, as you can imagine. we tend to focus on those writings, beautiful hymns, etc., because those are the things that inspire us. We know those other things are there, but we choose to place them where they belong; outside our regular expression of our faith. Given the choice between those writings that offend, particular the modern ear, we focus on things such as:

“Lord Keep Us Steadfast in Thy Word”

Lord, keep us steadfast in Thy Word;
Curb those who fain by craft and sword
Would wrest the kingdom from Thy Son
And set at naught all He hath done.

Lord Jesus Christ, Thy pow’r make known,
For Thou art Lord of lords alone;
Defend Thy Christendom that we
May evermore sing praise to Thee.

O Comforter of priceless worth,
Send peace and unity on earth.
Support us in our final strife
And lead us out of death to life.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

So, as you can imagine. we tend to focus on those writings, beautiful hymns, etc., because those are the things that inspire us. We know those other things are there, but we choose to place them where they belong; outside our regular expression of our faith. Given the choice between those writings that offend, particular the modern ear, we focus on things such as:

“Lord Keep Us Steadfast in Thy Word”

Lord, keep us steadfast in Thy Word;
Curb those who fain by craft and sword
Would wrest the kingdom from Thy Son
And set at naught all He hath done.

Lord Jesus Christ, Thy pow’r make known,
For Thou art Lord of lords alone;
Defend Thy Christendom that we
May evermore sing praise to Thee.

O Comforter of priceless worth,
Send peace and unity on earth.
Support us in our final strife
And lead us out of death to life.

Jon

Hi Hon: You put a very nice thing that Luther wrote but my problem is that he did not follow his good writings.

 

[Contarini]

So Luther comments are not allowed but Topper bashing is? YAWN! It’s a gettin’ old. Plus there is no Luther “bashing” it’s all his quotes. His words speak volumes.

Mary.

Luther comments are certainly allowed. But endlessly pointing out things that the people Topper is talking to already knows is, indeed, getting old. It’s accomplishing nothing, and I’m trying to explain why and how Topper can make his case more effectively. At this point it’s really not clear what his case is except that he doesn’t like Luther. Noted. So what?

If Luther were still alive, you bet I’d be taking him on and getting called unprintable things for my pains. But he’s not alive any more. We can’t point out his errors. That’s in God’s hands now (aka Purgatory).

Topper is still alive and on this forum. So the two cases aren’t remotely parallel.

No dispute that Topper is much, much more refined, and even relatively more fair and reasonable, than Luther (also a much less effective rhetorician, be it noted).

But that’s not the point. The question is: what is the proper way for Christians on opposite sides of the Reformation disputes to talk to each other? What exactly is the point of endlessly repeating the same litany of citations whose purpose is unclear beyond making the founding figure of the “other side” look as bad as possible?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi Hon: You put a very nice thing that Luther wrote but my problem is that he did not follow his good writings.

Which would not surprise Luther or any Lutheran.

You all get very frustrated when Protestants attack bad popes as if they discredited Catholicism, but then you do the same thing.

And yes, I get that for you a Doctor of the Church (which is basically what Luther is for Lutherans and for mainstream Protestants generally) is in a different category and held to a different standard than a Pope, because his/her value depends at least in part on sanctity and not on office.

But I’m making an analogy: in Lutheran theology, everyone is a sinner and can be expected to fall far, far short of their own best teachings. So you’re just not cutting any ice with Lutherans. You may impress some naive evangelicals who have bought a sanitized picture of Luther and who see him as a saintly figure in a Pietist sense.

Edwin

 

[spina1953]

Which would not surprise Luther or any Lutheran.

You all get very frustrated when Protestants attack bad popes as if they discredited Catholicism, but then you do the same thing.

And yes, I get that for you a Doctor of the Church (which is basically what Luther is for Lutherans and for mainstream Protestants generally) is in a different category and held to a different standard than a Pope, because his/her value depends at least in part on sanctity and not on office.

But I’m making an analogy: in Lutheran theology, everyone is a sinner and can be expected to fall far, far short of their own best teachings. So you’re just not cutting any ice with Lutherans. You may impress some naive evangelicals who have bought a sanitized picture of Luther and who see him as a saintly figure in a Pietist sense.

Edwin

Hi Contarni:I think you are trying to put me into the you all category of being frustrated when the Popes are discredited by Protestants. So How am I doing the same thing? I know that Luther wrote a great many things. Some are very good indeed but also he wrote some of the most nasty things one could say to someone whether its the Pope the CC or some other who did not agree with him. I do understand that there are many Lutheran’s who think Luther to be the Doctor of the Lutheran church.
While I have not read everything that the Doctors of the CC wrote so far I have not seen the type of vicious, violent, rude, unchristian, and Un-Christ like writings that Luther proffered.. I somehow get the impression that in our very own day and age Luther would not have gotten very far with his rantings and I tend to think a great many people would be put off by his rants and raves against the CC and or those of different denominational churches.

 

[Contarini]

Hi Contarni:I think you are trying to put me into the you all category of being frustrated when the Popes are discredited by Protestants. So How am I doing the same thing? I know that Luther wrote a great many things. Some are very good indeed but also he wrote some of the most nasty things one could say to someone whether its the Pope the CC or some other who did not agree with him. I do understand that there are many Lutheran’s who think Luther to be the Doctor of the Lutheran church.

                While I have not read everything that the Doctors of the CC wrote so far I have not seen the type of vicious, violent, rude, unchristian, and Un-Christ like writings that Luther proffered.. I somehow get the impression that in our very own day and age Luther would not have gotten very far with his rantings and I tend to think a great many people would be put off by his rants and raves against the CC and or those of different denominational churches.

Actually there are some Doctors of the Church whose words and actions are fairly questionable (Jerome, for instance–but certainly he was much, much classier than Luther). But that’s not my point. My point is precisely that you and other Catholics think it’s OK to use Luther’s personal flaws against Lutheranism but not OK for Protestants to use the flaws of Popes because you see Luther as more equivalent to a Doctor of the Church, or perhaps even an Apostle, than equivalent to a Pope whose authority depends on his office (nice as it is to have Popes who are also saints and Doctors of the Church, or even just wise and more or less decent people, as has been the case for the past century or two).

And my point is that just as yourtheology doesn’t require a Pope to be a paragon of virtue in order to be a valid Pope, so Lutheran theology is OK with Doctors and even Apostles being pretty darn sinful at times. Not that Lutherans don’t believe faith is linked to good works, but they recognize that the link is always imperfect and that the best of us are deeply flawed. So they just aren’t going to be as shocked by this stuff as you think they ought to be. And hence you and Topper and the others who are taking this line are beating your heads against a wall. It must hurt, and I really suggest that you stop.

Edwin

 

[Denise1957]

You may choose to disagree Edwin, but given Luther’s treatment of his opponents, I don’t think Lutherans have a leg to stand on whatsoever in complaining about anybody’s ‘polemical style’ in their criticism of Luther. That seems to me to be extraordinarily hypocritical.

–

Those things which are ‘overly generous’ to Luther are, in reality, unfair to the Catholic Church because they are ‘overly ungenerous’ to the Church.

The above comments are very good observations, IMO.

 

[benhur]

:knight2:

What I think is humorous is you think you are “revealing” (as if ) the “real Luther” by constantly using Lutheran writers. Clever, we Lutherans, surreptitiously hiding “the real Luther” in plain sight by writing about his flaws for all to read.

Touche .:knight2:

 

[spina1953]

Actually there are some Doctors of the Church whose words and actions are fairly questionable (Jerome, for instance–but certainly he was much, much classier than Luther). But that’s not my point. My point is precisely that you and other Catholics think it’s OK to use Luther’s personal flaws against Lutheranism but not OK for Protestants to use the flaws of Popes because you see Luther as more equivalent to a Doctor of the Church, or perhaps even an Apostle, than equivalent to a Pope whose authority depends on his office (nice as it is to have Popes who are also saints and Doctors of the Church, or even just wise and more or less decent people, as has been the case for the past century or two).

And my point is that just as yourtheology doesn’t require a Pope to be a paragon of virtue in order to be a valid Pope, so Lutheran theology is OK with Doctors and even Apostles being pretty darn sinful at times. Not that Lutherans don’t believe faith is linked to good works, but they recognize that the link is always imperfect and that the best of us are deeply flawed. So they just aren’t going to be as shocked by this stuff as you think they ought to be. And hence you and Topper and the others who are taking this line are beating your heads against a wall. It must hurt, and I really suggest that you stop.

Edwin

Hi contarini: I think you are putting me into a group that you dislike who can kind fault with Luther but don’t accept criticism from protestants about some of the bad Pope the Catholic had… My point is and was that Luther while he did have nice things to say in many of his writings most of what I have read that Luther wrote was to my mind very much un-Christ like and very much unchristian against those apposing him. I have yet to see any Doctor of the Catholic Church use such language in the writings in the same manor that Luther did. I am not talking about sins Luther may or may not have or had that’s not my concern here. Only of his writings that reflect his teachings and theology he defended by his rude remarks, vicious and violent attacks against those who refused to agree with what he taught and what his theology was. While I understand you might not be shocked or not have heard the arguments before Topper has his way and I mine which if much different from his. All I can say is if you do not like what I post you do not have to read it and by any means just ignore what posts I make.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Hon: You put a very nice thing that Luther wrote but my problem is that he did not follow his good writings.

Who does, Spina? I certainly don’t. I guess for all the time I have been here, as well as other Lutherans over the years, we’ve failed to clarify our beliefs.
We say with sincerity that the papacy teaches error, and yet we recognize that popes and bishops and Catholics of all stripes are Christians, redeemed by Christ. We can say that, despite our disagreements, we find in the Catholic Church word and sacrament, making it part of the one true Church.

This brings us back to the OP. I strongly believe that Luther and Melanchthon, Eck and Tetzel, were all flawed yet redeemed men, would have clearly taken a different approach had they known the path they were on.

“Simul iustus et peccator” - “At once saint and sinner”

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Who does, Spina? I certainly don’t. I guess for all the time I have been here, as well as other Lutherans over the years, we’ve failed to clarify our beliefs.
We say with sincerity that the papacy teaches error, and yet we recognize that popes and bishops and Catholics of all stripes are Christians, redeemed by Christ. We can say that, despite our disagreements, we find in the Catholic Church word and sacrament, making it part of the one true Church.

This brings us back to the OP. I strongly believe that Luther and Melanchthon, Eck and Tetzel, were all flawed yet redeemed men, would have clearly taken a different approach had they known the path they were on.

“Simul iustus et peccator” - “At once saint and sinner”

Jon

Hi Jon: Yes we are all flawed, Popes included. I understand you think the Popes teach error or the Papacy teaches errors which we as Catholic’s do not believe. We do not know if these men you stated are really redeemed. We or one can only hope so. Also we do not know if they would have taken a different approach if they knew the path they were taking.

But for us Catholic’s we believe that the catholic Church has and will continue to teach the truth as was given to them by the Apostles who had learned it from Jesus without any gloss.
.

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Jon: Yes we are all flawed, Popes included. I understand you think the Popes teach error or the Papacy teaches errors which we as Catholic’s do not believe. We do not know if these men you stated are really redeemed. We or one can only hope so. Also we do not know if they would have taken a different approach if they knew the path they were taking.

But for us Catholic’s we believe that the catholic Church has and will continue to teach the truth as was given to them by the Apostles who had learned it from Jesus without any gloss.
.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What I think is humorous is you think you are “revealing” (as if ) the “real Luther” by constantly using Lutheran writers. Clever, we Lutherans, surreptitiously hiding “the real Luther” in plain sight by writing about his flaws for all to read.

Two intuitively obvious points:

1. Not everyone, Lutherans and Catholics alike, reads good books.
2. The value in quoting Lutheran authors concerning Luther eliminates the charge of bias.

 

[spina1953]

Two intuitively obvious points:

1. Not everyone, Lutherans and Catholics alike, reads good books.
2. The value in quoting Lutheran authors concerning Luther eliminates the charge of bias.

Hi Randy: I agree! you took the words right out of my mouth!!! Good for you!
Keep up the good work you do on this forum!