Earlier in this long thread, gross misrepresentations of
another paper of mine occurred.
The paper included a summary of Luther’s own opinions, that I meticulously cite (30 quotations straight from him) from two of his three great treatises from 1520:
To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation and
The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.
“Topper17” cited my paper (quite relevantly to the discussion) as to reasons why Luther was excommunicated. Then “EvangelCatholic”: a Lutheran, started saying absurd and insulting stuff about the paper (as so often in these sorts of discussions, not dealing with ***it ***and the *actual arguments and documentation *in it. Anything but the subject at hand . . .). So he wrote:
Again in comment #295 (8-11-14) he charged:
To the contrary, the information was gathered in a very matter-of-fact way, from Luther’s two treatises (again, 30 quotes from them). All I did was later summarize in 50 points what he stated, as I just showed from his
own words. This Lutheran gentleman is
more than welcome – indeed, highly
encouraged – (here or on my blog) to try to challenge anything I have asserted, and whether Luther in fact did
not believe any given thing on the list and whether he did not think any of them were contrary to the Catholic Church.
Luther certainly intended to oppose all these things that he believed were false Catholic teachings and practices. But all this guy can do is moan and groan about alleged dishonesty and quotes out of context (the oldest “no answer” diversionary tactic in the book of sophistry and empty rhetoric).
Then “guanaphore” chimed in, trying to surpass the Lutheran guy in abject silliness about my paper and Luther research, in comment #302, from 8-12-14:
They are not “unreferenced” at all: as I have noted more than once now. Luther* believed* this stuff. The burden of proof for the critics is to demonstrate that he did not in fact believe any of the 50 things. Moreover, the point wasn’t to
run down Luther; it was a direct reply to those who say that Luther was
run out of the Church for no reason, and not allowed to have his say.
In order to show the falsity and irrationality of that claim, I “turned the table” and simply documented the sorts of things that Luther was talking about in 1520, before the Diet of Worms: stuff that he was asked to retract and was unwilling to do so. I was showing how no institution would ever countenance a lone guy coming in and saying, "here are 50 things that you guys have all wrong, and I know better. Now, change these things, to be in accord with
my opinions and that of the Bible . . . "
Nor is it “calumny and detraction” to attempt to understand what Luther was opposing, and to document it so people know the sorts of things that were “on the table” at the famous Diet of Worms" (you know, “here I stand” and all that . . .). Unless it is “calumny and detraction” to cite Luther’s own words . . . Gee whiz; I’m citing the words of “guanaphore” here; so now I am guilty of “calumny and detraction” against *him *too?
Boettner’s laundry lists are caricatures of distortions of supposed Catholic beliefs, with a severe anti-Catholic spin to them. My list was derived directly from Martin Luther. I make other lists of Martin Luther, too, of a much more favorable sort, such as:
“Martin Luther on Sanctification and the Absolute Necessity of Good Works as the Proof of Authentic Faith”.
Topper then made the following delightful (and very kind) remark (comment #313, 8-12-14):
Thanks, Topper, for understanding rudimentary courtesy and having the courage of one’s convictions. As of yet (after almost 22 days since this delightful “challenge” comment), I’ve seen no sign of anyone coming over to challenge me directly, with actual arguments, as opposed to empty, flatulent rhetoric and insulting catch-phrases.
My paper about the 50 reasons why Luther was excommunicated has been available online these past eight years. The name was given on this thread by Topper. Anyone could have found it online and read it. But no one (that we know of in this thread) seems to have done so, or else they would see that I gave
30 Luther quotes and then *summarized *what his beliefs in the quotes were.
If they want more context with the quotes, those works of Luther are available online. Knock your socks off, guys! I would
love to actually debate
any of this (i.e., the
actual initial subject of the thread: what a
novelty, huh?).
