Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[guanophore]

The sources are there- people can come to their own conclusions.

Topper, just for the record, this is the method I am challenging you to try.

 

[guanophore]

Hi All,

Clearly I am not going to get a simple answer to a simple direct question, which means that I guess I am going to have to go searching for the information myself. So much for the test case which could have potentially changed my position about future dialogue.

Topper

Topper, you made an assertion,and were asked to support it with evidence.

 You brought up **Wittenberg** in the **1530's**, and I asked you for the specifics. I did not ask you, or anyone, anything about Saxony.

TQ even provided you with a reading list.

You continue to want others to provide you with the evidence you your assertion.

Clearly I am not going to get a simple answer to a simple direct question, which means that I guess I am going to have to go searching for the information myself. So much for the test case which could have potentially changed my position about future dialogue.

With that being said, has anybody run across any specifics regarding Anabaptists being executed in Saxony?

Topper

Clearly I am not going to get a simple answer to a simple direct question

It is really a matter of you providing the simple answer to a direct question about a statement you made.

…which means that I guess I am going to have to go searching for the information myself.

With that being said, has anybody run across any specifics regarding Anabaptists being executed in Saxony?

Topper

Why should someone else do this research for you? You have the responsibility to support your own assertion.

So much for the test case which could have potentially changed my position about future dialogue.

This just seems to be pouting because you are asked to be accountable for what you said. It comes across as “well I am just going to take my toys and go home”.

I am sure there are issues behind your avoidance of TQ from the past, but this position does not support any productive dialogue. There are 40 times more people reading this thread than the ones posting on it. How does your refusal help them?

 

[spina1953]

Mr. Davis is giving a summary of Henry Bell’s English translation of Luther’s Tischreden. For a critical evaluation of Bell’s claims, see: Preserved Smith, Luther’s Table Talk, A Critical Study (1907) pp. 76-81. Copies are available on-line. Smith questions the authenticity of much of Bell’s story of finding the book.

But unfortunately, it’s not a primary source, so it can only be used as secondary evidence at best. For a critical short overview of the difficulty of the authenticity and accuracy of this source, see the introductory material in Luther’s Works vol. 54.

I personally wouldn’t be able to determine who was worse than who throughout history. Frankly, I’m very pleased and relieved that Christians (of whatever stripe) are no longer killing people. I wonder sometimes how peaceful Muslims must feel about their faith when others claiming their same faith are killing people.

My understand that it was a summary of Table Talk and nothing more. My understanding is that it was translated by William Hazlitt Esq. and it was from the Lutheran Publication Society. If nothing else it does give some enlightenment to Luther’s thinking.

As for the bloody times of the 15th century I am well aware that violence was had by many sides of the religious wars as well as the raising of nationalism. I am happy that in our modern day we do not or are not understanding that religious is not reason to be violent towards each other, though there has been violence in recent times between the Northren Irish protestants and Catholic fractions. What is so sad is the Muslim extremists who kill in the name of God, and peaceful Muslims are not standing up to them. Just as in the 15th century we can safely say that violence ids never the answer when it comes to religious beliefs.

 

[spina1953]

My opinions on Luther the man is based on my personal research and is not meant to be any attack on modern Lutheran’s. As one knows from any reading on Luther he was brought up in a very stern and harsh environment . In school Luther was met with the same stern severity his father who was a stern, harsh, and exacting . His mother was given to inflict the severest corporal punishments on Luther for even the most minor infractions. In this over strenuous discipline one may find to a certain degree the explanation for the development of that temper of an unbending obstenary for which Luther was so remarkable not only in his earliest years, but throughout his life.

In school Luther met with the same severity that was meted out at home. The schoolmaster of that time was generally a harsh disciplinarian and inspired a fear in his pupils, which was difficult to remove afterwards. Under this harsh environment Luther said" It shattered his nervous system for life." When Luther entered the Augustinian Order, he decided to work out his salvation , making this decision, without due consideration of his disposition. His closest friends tried to persuade him to reconsider his earliest days he was subject to fits of depression and sudden mood swings. He fell victim to excessive scrupulosity, and he was self-opinionated and stubborn minded and he relied altogether too much on his own righteousness and disregarded the remedies most effectual for his spiritual condition. Like all those who trusted in themselves, he rushed from extreme timidity to excessive rashness.

Luther saw himself, nothing but sin, more sin than he felt he could atone for by trying any works of penance. In all his prayers and fastings the conception of God he placed before his mind was very much that of a God of avenging justice and very little that of a God of mercy. The fear of the divine wrath made him abnormally apprehensive and prevented him from experiencing comfort and help. Instead of trusting with childlike confidence in the pardoning mercy of God and the merits of Christ, as the CC always exhorted the sourly tried to do, he gave himself to black despair . His singularity brought on distress of his soul, and his anxiety increased on the verge of madness.

All of these troubles may have been due to his having chosen the religious state of life, especially inasmuch as he entered upon it without due consideration. More importantly it is felt that if he had not disregarded the monastic regulations by those of his own devising, and had put into practice the wise directions of his spiritual directors, his troubles would have been greatly mitigated and considerably surmounted. Like most victims of scrupulosity he saw nothing in himself but wickidness and corruption. Since Luther was not content with the ordinary spiritual exercises prescribed by the Rule of St. Augustine, he set out on an independent path of righteousness. Luther decided he was going to do it his own way, which is usual for all stubborn minds, instead of by accepted means by those who could give him the help he needed by those who had experience and knowledge. Luther in his attempt to relieve his situation by his own means, the condition only worsened. Luther said that" I prescribed special tasks to myself and had my own ways. My superiors fought against this singularity."

His extreme behavior continued, passing from timidity to rashness. So from one absurdity he passed to another with the greatest ease. Luther’s scrupulosity and arrogance led one to say" I beg you Martin not to believe that you, and you alone, understand the meaning of the Gospels. Don’t rate your own opinions so highly, so far beyond that of many other sincere and eminent men." Luther’s writings make it quite clear and obvious in his arguments that he believes that only he had the true interpretation of Scripture. It has been long considered among the ill-informed that Luther inaugurated his movement against the CC from a desire to reform. This view is not borne out by facts when one examines the nature of Luther. External causes played little or no part in his change of religion. The impelling motive centered in his own nature, which demanded a teaching able to assure his tormented mind of pardon of sin and the ultimate salvation.

Troubled by doubts as to his vocation and oppressed by violent elements of hatred, envy, quarrelsomeness and pride, his singular self-esteem and self- reliance would not suffer him to make intelligent and enlightened use of the remedies most effectual for the cure of his abnormal spiritual life. He formulated and proclaimed pronouncements that the CC was unable to by her teachings and sacramental system to reconcile souls with God and bring comfort to those thirsting after salvation. Luther passed from error to error in quick succession. Luther came by degrees to believe that by reason on inherited sin, man had become totally depraved and possessed no liberty of the will. He then concluded that all human action whatsoever, even that which is directed towards good, being an amanation from our corrupt nature, is in the sight of God, nothing more or less than deadly sin. Therefore one’s actions have no influence on one’s salvation, and one is saved by faith alone without good works.

 

[TertiumQuid]

My opinions on Luther the man is based on my personal research

I can appreciate the desire to do research, but my unsolicited advise is to be careful with where you get the research from. For instance, if I were going to research Catholicism, I wouldn’t rely on a Jack Chick tract or a Dave Hunt book. I mention this because I worked through the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of what you posted, and found that the entirety may have been taken from only one source: Patrick O’Hare’s book, The Facts About Luther. For instance:

In school Luther met with the same severity that was meted out at home.

O’Hare: In school he met with the same severity that was meted out to him at home (36)

The schoolmaster of that time was generally a harsh disciplinarian and inspired a fear in his pupils, which was difficult to remove afterwards.

O’Hare: The schoolmaster of that day was generally a harsh disciplinarian and inspired a fear in pupils which was difficult to remove ever afterward. (36)

Under this harsh environment Luther said" It shattered his nervous system for life."

O’Hare: “This severity,” he says later on, ''shattered his nervous system for life." (37)

When Luther entered the Augustinian Order, he decided to work out his salvation , making this decision, without due consideration of his disposition.

O’Hare: He was on his way to become an excellent professor and an accomplished advocate, when, unfortunately for himself he resolved, without due consideration of his natural disposition, to become a friar. (42)

His closest friends tried to persuade him to reconsider (incomplete sentence)

O’Hare:His guests, knowing how unfitted he seemed for the monastic career, and sorry to lose a jovial companion, pleaded with him to reconsider his decision (43)

his earliest days he was subject to fits of depression and sudden mood swings.

O’Hare: From his earliest days he was subject to fits of depression and melancholy. (46)

He fell victim to excessive scrupulosity, and he was self-opinionated and stubborn minded and he relied altogether too much on his own righteousness and disregarded the remedies most effectual for his spiritual condition. Like all those who trusted in themselves, he rushed from extreme timidity to excessive rashness.

O’Hare: He fell a victim to excessive scrupulousness, and, as he was self-opinionated and stubborn-minded, he relied altogether too much on his own righteousness and disregarded the remedies most effectual for his spiritual condition. Like all those who trust in themselves, he rushed from extreme timidity to excessive rashness.

After these two paragraphs, I stopped working through your posted text.

Patrick O’Hare’s book belongs to a previous generation of catholic scholarship on the Reformation that had an extreme negative bias against Luther. There’s a lot of information available about the way these scholars portrayed Luther and the reformation (both from catholics and protestants). for a catholic overview, see the opening chapter in Jared Wicks, Luther and His spiritual Legacy (Delaware: Michael Glazer Inc., 1983). For a non-catholic look, see Richard Stauffer, Luther As Seen By Catholics (Virginia: John Knox Press, 1967).

If your interested in some scholarly catholic biographies of Luther that don’t belong to the period of catholic destructive criticism, I can make recommendations if you’re interested.

 

[spina1953]

I can appreciate the desire to do research, but my unsolicited advise is to be careful with where you get the research from. For instance, if I were going to research Catholicism, I wouldn’t rely on a Jack Chick tract or a Dave Hunt book. I mention this because I worked through the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of what you posted, and found that the entirety may have been taken from only one source: Patrick O’Hare’s book, The Facts About Luther. For instance:

O’Hare: In school he met with the same severity that was meted out to him at home (36)

O’Hare: The schoolmaster of that day was generally a harsh disciplinarian and inspired a fear in pupils which was difficult to remove ever afterward. (36)

O’Hare: “This severity,” he says later on, ''shattered his nervous system for life." (37)

O’Hare: He was on his way to become an excellent professor and an accomplished advocate, when, unfortunately for himself he resolved, without due consideration of his natural disposition, to become a friar. (42)

O’Hare:His guests, knowing how unfitted he seemed for the monastic career, and sorry to lose a jovial companion, pleaded with him to reconsider his decision (43)

O’Hare: From his earliest days he was subject to fits of depression and melancholy. (46)

O’Hare: He fell a victim to excessive scrupulousness, and, as he was self-opinionated and stubborn-minded, he relied altogether too much on his own righteousness and disregarded the remedies most effectual for his spiritual condition. Like all those who trust in themselves, he rushed from extreme timidity to excessive rashness.

After these two paragraphs, I stopped working through your posted text.

Patrick O’Hare’s book belongs to a previous generation of catholic scholarship on the Reformation that had an extreme negative bias against Luther. There’s a lot of information available about the way these scholars portrayed Luther and the reformation (both from catholics and protestants). for a catholic overview, see the opening chapter in Jared Wicks, Luther and His spiritual Legacy (Delaware: Michael Glazer Inc., 1983). For a non-catholic look, see Richard Stauffer, Luther As Seen By Catholics (Virginia: John Knox Press, 1967).

If your interested in some scholarly catholic biographies of Luther that don’t belong to the period of catholic destructive criticism, I can make recommendations if you’re interested.

All I can say is that I do not know who O’Hare is and have never read any book of his. What I will say is this whether one agrees or not it is just an opinion and not any slight against modern Lutheran’s. I understand that Lutheran’s have their beliefs and I have no problem with that. I do think however, that while there are many things said about Luther both good and bad, I just try to find the facts as they are. I understand secondary sources but sometimes one just has to use what is available. I do not just take whatever someone says even when it puts Luther into a bad light, I also look for whatever good there is also.

 

[TertiumQuid]

All I can say is that I do not know who O’Hare is and have never read any book of his.

Wow, what an incredible coincidence then between what you wrote, and what he wrote. Maybe I will go through some of your other paragraphs.

 

[guanophore]

 I don't actually "feel" anything. I know that he founded his church but did not prove his authority.

Can you provide any documentation to support this assertion? Do you have any evidence that Luther “founded” the documents and agreements that are now considered Lutheran?

He had none and your church is not Catholic. You all need to hurry on home.

   If we venture into this, I could very easily be charged with either proselytizing or having disrespect for your church.

I think the statement above this from Annie39 meets both these criteria, but I know there is somewhat of a double standard here. Catholics can be disrespectful and proselytize where non-Catholics will more often be cited.

 

[MaryT777]

Can you provide any documentation to support this assertion? Do you have any evidence that Luther “founded” the documents and agreements that are now considered Lutheran?

I think the statement above this from Annie39 meets both these criteria, but I know there is somewhat of a double standard here. Catholics can be disrespectful and proselytize where non-Catholics will more often be cited.

Guan Can you quit analyzing Topper and Annie’s posts and stick to the topic without the frequent commentary on both Toppper and now Annie.
Mary.

 

[GKC]

All I can say is that I do not know who O’Hare is and have never read any book of his. What I will say is this whether one agrees or not it is just an opinion and not any slight against modern Lutheran’s. I understand that Lutheran’s have their beliefs and I have no problem with that. I do think however, that while there are many things said about Luther both good and bad, I just try to find the facts as they are. I understand secondary sources but sometimes one just has to use what is available. I do not just take whatever someone says even when it puts Luther into a bad light, I also look for whatever good there is also.

Your last para conforms, as does the previous ones cited, to O’Hare, pp. 60 &61, with an occasional odd spelling or punctuation. Where did you get what you posted, in that form, and in those words? Just curious.

GKC

 

[TertiumQuid]

Here’s another paragraph to see what the odds of continued coincidence are between what you wrote today an what Patrick O’Hare wrote long ago:

Luther saw himself, nothing but sin, more sin than he felt he could atone for by trying any works of penance.

O’Hare: He saw in himself nothing but sin, more sin than he felt he could atone for by any works of penance. (57-58)

In all his prayers and fastings the conception of God he placed before his mind was very much that of a God of avenging justice and very little that of a God of mercy.

O’Hare: In all his prayers and fastings the conception of God he placed before his mind was very much that of a God of avenging justice and very little that of a God of’mercy. (58)

The fear of the divine wrath made him abnormally apprehensive and prevented him from experiencing comfort and help.

O’Hare: The fear of the divine wrath made him abnormally apprehensive and prevented him from experiencing comfort and help in the performance of religious exercises. (58)

Instead of trusting with childlike confidence in the pardoning mercy of God and the merits of Christ, as the CC always exhorted the sourly tried to do, he gave himself to black despair.

O’Hare: His sorrow for sin was devoid of humble charity and instead of trusting with childlike confidence in the pardoning mercy of God and in the merits of Christ, as the Church always exhorted the sorely tried to do, he gave himself up to black despair. (58)

His singularity brought on distress of his soul, and his anxiety increased on the verge of madness.

O’Hare: His singularity brought on distress of soul and his anxiety increased until wakefulness became a confirmed habit. His condition became so sad that at times his fellow-monks feared he was on the verge of madness. (58)

 

[spina1953]

Your last para conforms, as does the previous ones cited, to O’Hare. Where did you get what you posted, in that form, and in those words? Just curious.

GKC

I just researched it but I did not take it from O’Hare but from I am now gathering is that those whom I read and used may have used it without saying that it came from O’Hare. But I will say this though it does seem to give something of who Luther was and what may have prompted or caused him to be what he came to be. Oh by the way I would have cited who wrote it but I did not know who wrote what. However in the future I will try to get cites so that you and others can read it for yourselves.

 

[spina1953]

Here’s another paragraph to see what the odds of continued coincidence are between what you wrote today an what Patrick O’Hare wrote long ago:

O’Hare: He saw in himself nothing but sin, more sin than he felt he could atone for by any works of penance. (57-58)

O’Hare: In all his prayers and fastings the conception of God he placed before his mind was very much that of a God of avenging justice and very little that of a God of’mercy. (58)

O’Hare: The fear of the divine wrath made him abnormally apprehensive and prevented him from experiencing comfort and help in the performance of religious exercises. (58)

O’Hare: His sorrow for sin was devoid of humble charity and instead of trusting with childlike confidence in the pardoning mercy of God and in the merits of Christ, as the Church always exhorted the sorely tried to do, he gave himself up to black despair. (58)

O’Hare: His singularity brought on distress of soul and his anxiety increased until wakefulness became a confirmed habit. His condition became so sad that at times his fellow-monks feared he was on the verge of madness. (58)

I will say this those I used in my research did not cite O’Hare but I will take your word that they did. I do try to cite when I can those who write anything on Luther where it is good or bad. I will try to be more careful in the future on who is saying what in my research. I will say this however, there appears to be many who have said the same things from so many letters and essays etc that I have read, so I am sure that others have used the same before.

 

[GKC]

I just researched it but I did not take it from O’Hare but from I am now gathering is that those whom I read and used may have used it without saying that it came from O’Hare. But I will say this though it does seem to give something of who Luther was and what may have prompted or caused him to be what he came to be. Oh by the way I would have cited who wrote it but I did not know who wrote what. However in the future I will try to get cites so that you and others can read it for yourselves.

That is useful. Whatever your source, it is (as far as checked), word for word, lifted from O’Hare, with, as I mentioned, an occasional letter or comma change.

GKC

 

[spina1953]

That is useful. Whatever your source, it is (as far as checked), word for word, lifted from O’Hare, with, as I mentioned, an occasional letter or comma change.

GKC

All I can say then is that those sources used O’Hare who I do not know or have read seems to me not the best way to go about it but then I see that I did not do my homework very well, so will have to try to better my research as I am not looking to take others words for my own.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I will say this those I used in my research did not cite O’Hare but I will take your word that they did. I do try to cite when I can those who write anything on Luther where it is good or bad. I will try to be more careful in the future on who is saying what in my research. I will say this however, there appears to be many who have said the same things from so many letters and essays etc that I have read, so I am sure that others have used the same before.

From my perspective, cutting-and-pasting someone else’s long synopsis is not doing research. Research entails checking facts and sources for accuracy. That’s my 2 cents.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Indeed there were executions in Saxony. Search out these sources:

Valentin Weigel, German Religious Dissenter, Speculative Theorist, and Advocate of Tolerance

John S. Oyer, Lutheran Reformers Against Anabaptists

Peter Pestel, The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia

– TertiumQuid, comment #692

TertiumQuid was offering these sources for folks seeking to understand the Lutheran persecution of Anabaptists. They caught my eye, for a few reasons. I recognized two of them as my own sources, used in a paper I wrote a little over two weeks ago, already responding to some of TQs comments earlier.

Curious, I did a search on his website to see if he had ever cited these works before (since he has cited on his site a million books having to do with Luther). He had indeed used Oyer as a source in the past, but never Weigel or The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia. Clearly, he “found” them in my paper.

The other thing that caught my eye was his attribution of Peter Pestel as the author or editor of The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia, when in fact, he was an Anabaptist martyr who was written about in that source (!!!). It seems fairly clear that TQ had glanced at a sentence of mine in my paper: “We do have one person mentioned by name in Weeks’ book: Peter Pestel. The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online provides an article about him and more detail:”

It looks like he thought that the Encyclopedia was Pestel’s book. Thus, TQ proves that he couldn’t read my paper carefully or in context: the same one that he is now (ironically!) using as a source for Luther sources.

Now, this may seem like nitpicking or piling on, in a case of a simple mistake or human error. Readers may wonder why I am making such a “big deal” about it. I do precisely because TQ is always pointing out human errors in Catholic works (he’s noted real or – usually – falsely alleged – ones in my own writings for twelve years). We see him doing this on this very thread (though his noting of plagiarism from Patrick O’Hare in this thread is a legitimate example and gripe), and examples of it on his website are legion.

If a Catholic had made an error like this, and he caught wind of it, we can be sure that TQ would have trumpeted it from the rooftops as yet more evidence that we non-Christian Catholics don’t even know how to properly cite a source, and that we’re always trying to lie about and misrepresent Luther; that we’re, well, kind of dumb, and that we know nothing about context in reading and citing sources. He’s stated this many hundreds of times (I know, since my writings have been the target of his papers many scores of times over the last 12 years).

I must say I did greatly enjoy the humor of the Reformed Luther “expert” recommending a work that was supposedly edited by an Anabaptist martyr almost 500 years after his murder by Lutherans in 1536: then going on to chide Catholics here (as is his trademark) for their inaccuracies and inability to read in context.

NOTE: I’m not here to fully participate in threads (have neither time nor desire), but only to comment occasionally and to clarify the facts of the matter if one of my writings has been brought up, as it was in this thread. I’m misrepresented so often in public, I figured it was time to do something about it occasionally, in places other than my own blog, as these errors go out uncontested and people tend to believe whatever they see in writing.

I don’t lose any sleep over it. It’s part of being a published apologist. But I do have the right to give my side of things when someone critiques something I have written and does a poor job of it.

 

[guanophore]

A nice historical summary spina! It is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. I think the thread can be closed now. Between you and Topper, I think it has been covered!

The schoolmaster of that time was generally a harsh disciplinarian and inspired a fear in his pupils, which was difficult to remove afterwards. Under this harsh environment Luther said" It shattered his nervous system for life."

You know, science has backed up this self report. People who are raised as he was do have damaged nervous systems and it can last for life. Nowadays, many exacerbate it by using drugs and alcohol, which damages the system more.

This is also why the same event will affect people differently. Those who face a severe trauma with an already compromised nervous system do not cope as well.

When Luther entered the Augustinian Order, he decided to work out his salvation

You know, I think it was different. I think he wanted to work “on” his salvation. Working it “out” is an experience based in grace, and powered by the Holy Spirit, but in his case, I don’t think he grasped this, so instead of working “out” the grace that was already in him through baptism and eucharist, he worked “on” it by penances, etc.

In all his prayers and fastings the conception of God he placed before his mind was very much that of a God of avenging justice and very little that of a God of mercy. The fear of the divine wrath made him abnormally apprehensive and prevented him from experiencing comfort and help. Instead of trusting with childlike confidence in the pardoning mercy of God and the merits of Christ, as the CC always exhorted the sourly tried to do, he gave himself to black despair . His singularity brought on distress of his soul, and his anxiety increased on the verge of madness.

And such is not an uncommon conception of God when one has been wounded by authority figures. I think the CC and Leo also got some of this projection. But where Luther could excuse God because God is also just, he could not excuse the other authorative figures in his life. Eventually he identified with them in many ways, and became abusive himself.

   All of these troubles may have been due to his having chosen the religious state of life, especially inasmuch as he entered upon it without due consideration.

Perhaps, but I think had he not had so much spiritual support and intervention , it would have been worse. He would have suffered no matter what he did.

… and had put into practice the wise directions of his spiritual directors, his troubles would have been greatly mitigated and considerably surmounted.

Yes, but like all of us, he was doing the best he could. He really did not grasp the concept of salvation by grace, through faith, until too late.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Evangelical Presbyterian “Tomyris” cited my aforementioned blog paper in his comment #694 and opined about me (I don’t know how to properly quote an earlier poster yet, so their name shows up, etc.):

He did not however document the “direct assent and approval of Luther and Melanchthon.” We don’t have a signed and sealed note from Luther saying “Ja, getten Sie diese Muttonheads! Love und Kuessen, Martin.” So I think the proof is somewhat lacking and is speculative. Did Luther control secular events in Wittenberg? That is probably unproveable at this point. I don’t think the point can be pressed either way, that Luther directed killing or that he had nothing to do with it. I call it murky.

I don’t think it’s murky at all. Luther’s and Melanchthon’s united will was clearly laid out in two pamphlets of 1531 and 1536 (written by Melanchthon and signed in agreement by Luther: both confirmed by Protestant Luther biographer Roland Bainton). These obliterated the distinction between peaceful and “seditious” Anabaptists, and held that ***all ***were “seditious” in advocating adult believer’s baptism. Therefore, it’s quite reasonable to assume that any executions of Anabaptists in Saxony in the 1530s (Luther later softened a bit) had their express approval.

Thus, Peter Pestel (i.e., the martyr who, according to TertiumQuid supposedly edited a Mennonite Encyclopedia almost 500 years after his beheading by Lutherans) was given Melanchthon’s notorious 1536 pamphlet (signed and agreed with by Luther) to read in prison. Upon rejecting it, the Elector decided that he was worthy of death, and he was executed, ISIS-style.

That is one disproof of what “Tomyris” thinks is an unclear or “murky” issue. If that’s not clear enough “direct assent and approval” (my words) of such executions, then we have the evidence of Melanchthon being physically present at one of these monkey trials of Anabaptists, which I noted (thus “Tomyris” shows that he, like TQ, has difficulty reading my paper, which he himself cited and linked to). The Mennonite Encyclopedia article on “Saxony” stated:

On 21 November 1535, Hans Peissker of Kleineutersdorf near Orlamünde was arrested in his own house with his sixteen-year-old daughter Margarethe and fourteen others; he was taken to the Leuchtenburg, and after a minute cross-examination, attended by Melanchthon, put to death with Heinz Kraut and Jobst Möller in Jena at the end of January 1536.

 

[spina1953]

From my perspective, cutting-and-pasting someone else’s long synopsis is not doing research. Research entails checking facts and sources for accuracy. That’s my 2 cents.

I have to agree with you I looked for my notes to find who it was I was quoting but now can’t fine it. next time I will make sure I include the cite of who I am quoting.