Questions about Martin Luther

[JoeyWarren]

Sure. It’s not that difficult. A historical work by a scholar with a Ph.D. in the field, which has been published by an academic press and/or reviewed in an academic journal (Church History, Sixteenth Century Studies, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, etc.).

Historians of all persuasions–Catholic, Protestant, atheist, Jewish–meet these criteria.

Why are you answering for steadfast?

 

[TertiumQuid]

hmmmmmmmmmmmm is Steadfast actually anti-catholic James Swan?

Hi Joey-

No. I only post under the name “TertiumQuid” or my own name. I don’t play games of loging into places under different names.

Regards,

James Swan

Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

 

[sadie2723]

That’s a rather weird claim. Normally one assumes that people are responsible for their actions. The burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.

Edwin

I would have provided said proof…but my man Joey beat me to the punch on that one. The point I was making is that steadfast was falling a little short on producing evidence that supported her claims. That, by the way, is the same point that Joey has been talking about.

Cheers!

 

[JoeyWarren]

blah, blah, blah

Take a look at comments 119 and 121.

 

[sadie2723]

Take a look at comments 119 and 121.

Quite right! I am still waiting for our friend steadfast to produce any kind of documentation for her claims.

I find that I wait for that a lot when dealing with some people…but alas I will continue to wait.

For now, I think that Joey and I have proven our point unless someone wants to actually use evidence to support a counter claim.

Cheers!

 

[JoeyWarren]

How about a compromize Steadfast and Contranini?

My comments about Martin Luther being talked out of completely removing them entirely by his supporters is specualation and not fact even though I have provided evidence of others speculating about this as well

IF

You will acknowledge that Martin Luther is ultimately responsible for having the Deuterocanicals removed from Protestant Bibles and that Martin Luther was wrong for taking the Deuterocanicals out of their proper place and relegating them to an appendix or addendum. Also he was wrong to not list them in the Index? Also Martin Luther is ultimately responsible for the many thousands of splintered denominations and non-denominations that exist today?

 

[Steadfast]

How about a compromize Steadfast and Contranini?

My comments about Martin Luther being talked out of completely removing them entirely by his supporters is speculation and not fact even though I have provided evidence of others speculating about this as well.

Thanks, I appreciate it. That’s all I wanted.

You will acknowledge that Martin Luther is ultimately responsible for having the Deuterocanicals removed from Protestant Bibles

Ultimately? That’s hard to say. He did translate them. He didn’t remove them entirely. It would be difficult to pin this on him.

and that Martin Luther was wrong for taking the Deuterocanicals out of their proper place and relegating them to an appendix or addendum.

No, I don’t believe he was wrong to do this. The canonicity of the OT Deuteros was a matter of liberty for scholars of the time period. It didn’t cease to be so until Trent at least for Catholic scholars.

As a biblical scholar and translator, at the time, he had the freedom to do this. So, no, he wasn’t wrong.

Also he was wrong to not list them in the Index?

I wasn’t aware that he hadn’t. But let me make sure I am understanding you correctly:

Are you saying that he didn’t include a table of contents listing the books he placed in an appendix as apocryphal?

If this is what you mean, again, I’d like to ask you to prove it, but of course, you’ll just stall me with the requirement that I prove that he did and we’ll get no where. Every list of the books included in the 1534 edition I’ve ever seen includes the OT Deuteros listed in the table.

So, I’ll just deny it and we can move on.

Also Martin Luther is ultimately responsible for the many thousands of splintered denominations and non-denominations that exist today?

No, I can’t sign off on this one either. The Church, long before Luther, had had movements develop within her which were eventually rejected and went on to have their own existences outside her.

He can’t be held responsible for what people who came after him did. If you want to charge him with breaking with Rome and call that wrong, fine then. He did that much and deserves the opprobrium of Roman True Believers as well as the praise of Protestants for doing so.

What would this accomplish?

We could just as easily blame Montanus or the Patriarch of Constantinople.

I’m not much interested in confirming you in a caricature of history.

 

[Steadfast]

Just one more thing for sadie.

I’m male.

 

[Mickey]

The Church, long before Luther, had had movements develop within her which were eventually rejected

I believe these were called heresies.

 

[Steadfast]

I believe these were called heresies.

That’s alright. Formally, from a RC perspective, Luther was certainly a heretic.

But he wasn’t the first and he wasn’t the first to break away so any “ultimate” blame can’t really be laid at his door.

 

[Mickey]

That’s alright. Formally, from a RC perspective, Luther was certainly a heretic.
But he wasn’t the first and he wasn’t the first to break away so any “ultimate” blame can’t really be laid at his door.

You put subtle words in my mouth. I did not call Luther a heretic–nor do I call those who were borne of the reformation, heretics. Because of the stigma attached to that word, I feel that it is a bit uncharitable to do so. Many protestants are not even aware that they broke from the Catholic Church! However, those movements before Luther that held strange doctrines and denied important truths, (ie:arianism, nestorianism, montanism, monophysitism, etc, etc, etc), I am confident to classify as heresies.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[Steadfast]

No, Mickey, you misunderstand me.

I didn’t say you said he was an heretic.

I said that I agree that, by Roman Catholic standards, he is an heretic.

You are free to believe what you like about him.

 

[Contarini]

I would have provided said proof…but my man Joey beat me to the punch on that one. The point I was making is that steadfast was falling a little short on producing evidence that supported her claims. That, by the way, is the same point that Joey has been talking about.

Cheers!

What claims? Joey is the one who made the claim that Luther only kept the d-c’s because his advisors told him to do. He has provided no evidence–absolutely none–for this claim. It’s an open-and-shut case. Now he admits that this is speculation, so I guess the debate is over.

Why steadfast should be expected to produce evidence to refute a completely unsubstantiated claim is utterly beyond me.

Joey says he has produced such evidence, but I’ve read through this thread and haven’t seen it. He pointed me to posts that had absolutely no relevance to his claim about Luther’s advisors (true, he refuted the idea that Luther produced the Bible completely on his own, but that was never relevant–it was a weak argument produced by steadfast, and completely unnecessary because the burden of proof was always on Joey).

The most disturbing aspect of this argument is the attitude that the “little things” (i.e., actual historical truth) don’t really matter because the “big issue” is that Luther “broke from the Church.”

So much for being “deep in history.” I can’t see that Catholic apologetics has much to do with history at all. It really boils down to this:

1. We should have one Church.
2. Protestants haven’t produced a unified Church.
3. Therefore we should pick out everything in history that discredits Protestantism, and ignore or explain away everything that discredits Catholicism. After all, history must point to the truth of Catholicism, or else we will be left with 100,000 denominations or whatever the latest number is.

It has nothing to do with history. What fuels most conversion to Catholicism on these boards is not a quest for truth as we ordinary mortals understand it, but rather a desperate hunger for unity and authority.

I share that hunger. But I hunger even more for truth. And I don’t divide truth into little truth and big truth. All truth is God’s truth. If you can only establish the Truth by ignoring truth, then your Truth is a lie.

Luther is responsible for his own actions, and only his own actions. And those actions must be understood in their historical context. Anything else is mere spin and fluff, if it is not something far more deadly.

Edwin

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

What fuels most conversion to Catholicism on these boards is not a quest for truth as we ordinary mortals understand it, but rather a desperate hunger for unity and authority.

No. What fuels true conversions to Catholicism is He the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mickey]

I said that I agree that, by Roman Catholic standards, he is an heretic.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.

You are free to believe what you like about him.

Thanks again.

 

[Mickey]

What fuels most conversion to Catholicism on these boards is not a quest for truth as we ordinary mortals understand it, but rather a desperate hunger for unity and authority.

I disagree. I clearly see truth in the Catholic Church.

All truth is God’s truth.

…and the journey continues.

 

[Contarini]

No. What fuels true conversions to Catholicism is He the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is always accurate. He does not inspire people to denigrate historical truth in favor of the “big picture.”

And please note that I’m talking about the conversions represented by this board, not all conversions to Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

And please note that I’m talking about the conversions represented by this board, not all conversions to Catholicism.

I’m not sure you should make such a generalization–even if it is limited to this board.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Just one more thing for sadie.
I’m male.

Actually it was Contranini that tagged you as a female. You had better read his first two posts first.

 

[Steadfast]

Actually it was Contranini that tagged you as a female. You had better read his first two posts first.

Okay, I went back and read everything. I’m not referred to as female until Sadie does so in post 137.

It seems unlikely that he would be confused about my gender since we’ve known eachother here for a while.

I’d be very surprised anyway/