G
guanophore
Guest
At the very least, off topic. EC wants use whatever he can find to divert attention away from the facts that have been presented.
- Status
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Dave Armstrong: I have been enjoying your posts hope to be able to read more. I am wondering as I have been trying to research the Anabaptists persecutions and also the Peasants Revolt which seems to me to have occurred about the same time, and so wondering if the two go together in some way? maybe you can give some insight to it? Thanks.Thanks! It was quite an eye-opener, although I knew that these things went on, generally speaking. Melanchthon even wanted folks killed for denying the Real Presence, and then later on he did so himself (somehow inexplicably having escaped the noose).
Thus, a guy like, say (out of the blue) James White, very well could have been executed (as a “seditious” blasphemer) on at least two grounds in Luther’s and Melanchthon’s Saxony, whereas I as a Catholic would have merely been banished and have my parish church stolen from me.
But by “Dr.” ?] White’s own stated criteria, Luther and Melanchthon themselves would not even be Christians anyway, as I demonstrated over ten years ago.
Unfortunately, neither consistency nor tolerance were exactly high points in the “reformers’” thoughts . . .
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Guanophore: I have to agree as it is rather off topic and maybe he should start a new thread on that subject where he can expound on it more.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi GKC: I was wondering if you buy your books online or go to a book store. I generally go to the book store as I am a little wary of buying on line unless I can phone a order in.
D
DaveArmstrong
Guest
It’s two different things. The Peasants were anti-institutional and reacting to their miserable circumstances, whereas the Anabaptists were persecuted for their religious beliefs: particularly adult baptism, which was seen as utterly revolutionary at the time. Most Anabaptists were perfectly peaceful, but a small fringe of them was violent.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Dave Armstrong: I understand what you said and so far I see that to. But it just seemed to me that since both happened at the same time if some of it might have gotten intertwined since it was a bloody time for persecutions of one kind or another. While Peasants were wanting a better life and the Anabaptists were wanting to do their own thing and seemed to cover most parts of what was then the Holy Roman Empire, just wondered if both got caught up in it, where one is accused for one thing while believing in another, IOWs peasants being accused of being Anabaptists and Anabaptists being accused of revolting against the princes?
G
GKC
Guest
I only buy from across the counter, or by an order placed across a counter, these days. I used to do quite a bit of on-line ordering; upgraded some of my Chesterton stuff, on Ebay and bought some choice items for my SF collection, often for getting the authors to sign. But for a number of reasons, I grew wary of online purchases, generally, and cut out my book buying that way, entirely.
The closing of many local brick and mortar book stores in the area makes that harder to do, but I press on. I still average around 250+ purchases a year, I’d guess. I was at a SF con last week, which usually means I’d pick up 10-12 titles there. But only 2 this year.
GKC
D
DaveArmstrong
Guest
I don’t know enough about the particulars. I would recommend doing a Google search of both categories together, to see what you can come up with; or buying a relevant book by a reputable historian.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi GKC: I get what you are saying. I do have a little problem in doing on line buying as there are so many ways fir hackers to get what infor they can. I will buy online if there is a telephone I can call to place an order otherwise I won’t but. What is SF id that Science Fiction? I used to read a lot of it back in the 60’s but not much for the fanacies and dark stuff but I do like the end of the world stuff and how they survive etc. I will say this you buy more books than I do I generally buy about 5 or 6 books otherwise I try to use the library cheaper that way.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Dave Armstrong: Thanks I will try that and see what I can find.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
spina: To add- Google supports Boolean search operators.
Meaning you can do the following search:
“Anabaptists AND Peasants”
By including the quotation marks you are limiting your hits to records that have both terms.
(I don’t think the operators are case sensitive but I always use them in CAPS to keep track of more advanced inclusions/exclusions).
If you’d like to exclude certain terms/names, you can search:
“Anabaptists AND Peasants” NOT insert term here.
And so forth.
Peace
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Isaiah: its been awhile glad to hear from you. Thanks for the information it helps a lot I want you to know as I am not all that smart when it comes to looking up things on the internet. I will do it as you have suggested as that seems to me the way to go. again thanks so much for your help. Peace and God bless.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
You are welcome!
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
The topic please
T
Tomyris
Guest
One thing that has not been looked at on this thread is his marriage. He was a priest, yet he married. Wasn’t there a vow? Was it contingent? Did he make a good hubby and daddy?
His marriage was in 1525, well after his excommunication, and not a factor in it, IIRC.
Jon
S
spina1953
Guest
I do not if it fractured in but I believe that Luther’s Wife was once a nun. I could be wrong about that but that is what I had read .
D
DaveArmstrong
Guest
Of course he made a vow, but he’d probably say it was a vow that was invalid from the first because hardly anyone can be celibate, etc. That has no bearing on the binding nature of the vow. He freely made it.
I hear he was a very loving husband. They had no children. His wife was a former nun, who would have also made a vow.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your response.
Via the subject of intolerance, Topper segues (I hate that word!) to the actual subject of the thread; Martin Luther, to discuss Luther’s intolerance.
“His (Luther’s) views altered in 1530. After a Mandate had been issued in the Saxon Electorate against the 4 secret preachers and conventicles, Anabaptists and other baneful novel teaching," six Anabaptists were executed early in the year at Reinhardsbrunn in the duchy of Saxe-Gotha. The discussion which took place on this event gave Melanchthon occasion to declare in Feb., 1530, that, “even though the Anabaptists do not advocate anything seditious or openly blasphemous” it was, “in his opinion, the duty of the authorities to put them to death.” In the spring of 1530, with the Anabaptists in his mind, Luther, in his commentary on Ps. Jxxxii. dealt with the question whether the authorities "ought to forbid strange teachings or heresies and punish them, seeing that no one should or can force men into the Faith.”
His detailed reply to the question which it was then impossible any longer to blink, centers round the distinction he makes of two kinds of heretics, viz. those who were seditious, and those who merely " teach the opposite of some clear article of faith." Of the latter, i.e. the non-revolutionary, he says expressly: “These also must not be allowed but must be punished like public blasphemers." Of those, who, though holding no office, themselves in as preachers, and thus imperil the faith and lead to risings, he writes, that their oath of allegiance obliged the burghers not to listen to them but rather to report them either to their parson or to the authorities. If such a one will not desist "then let the authorities hand over knaves of that ilk to their proper master, to wit Master Hans " (i.e. the hangman). Grisar VI, pg 249-50
Dave, it appears to me that these six add to the current total of 47. Are we at 53 now?
“Early in October, 1531, agreeably with the Saxon Elector s Mandate, a number of persons suspected of holding Anabaptist views were taken to Eisenach for punishment and were there put to the torture; it was now judged advisable to obtain a fresh memorandum from the Wittenberg theologians.
Accordingly, at the end of 1530, Melanchthon at the instance of the Electoral Court once more took the matter in hand. He drafted a memorandum on the duty of the secular authorities in the matter of religious differences, with particular reference to the Anabaptists. In it he set forth at length the grounds for a regular system of coercion by the sword. Luther, too, set his name to the document with the words: " It pleases me, Martin Luther." Grisar VI, pg 251
In all fairness, Luther did have misgivings, but not such as to resist the temptation to execute the Anabaptists.
Apparently under Luther’s “guidance”, you actually be tortured if you were merely suspected of holding Anabaptist views. That is a perfect example of Lutheran “tolerance”.
“**Between 1530 and 1532 Luther s intolerance comes yet more to the fore; it was indeed his way, when once he had made any view his own, to urge it in the strongest terms. Thus, at the end of 1531, he again alludes to Master Hans: “Those who force themselves in without any office or commission are not worthy of being called false prophets but are vagrants and knaves, who ought to be handed over to the tender mercies of Master Hans.” “It is not allowed that each one should proceed according to his own ideas and set up his own doctrine and fancy himself a sage, and dictate to, and find fault with, others.” "This I call judging of doctrine, which is one of the greatest and most scatheful vices.” **Grisar VI, pg 252-3
Master Hans is the hangman, so when Luther says that someone should be turned over to Master Hans, it means that they are to be hanged. In this case, the crime is doctrinal disagreement with Him. Here he makes the statement that people should not be allowed to set up their own doctrines according to their own ideas. He then states that this “judging” of doctrine is not allowed, but what he really means is that judging of HIS doctrine is not allowed. Somehow he seemed to have forgotten that it was HE who “judged” the WHOLE of 1500 years worth of Christian doctrine.
According to Luther one should not:
God Bless You Dave, Topper
BTW, as for Dr? White. I happen to have a rather soft spot in my heart for him. His was basically the first book I read in my search for the Truth. My reaction was: “If this is all the better it gets on the Protestant side, then I REALLY need to look seriously at the Catholic Church.” If I remember correctly, the chapter on Sola Scriptura had maybe one reference to actual Scripture on each page. It was pretty shocking.
For the record, most of the Scholars I quote have actual PhD’s from actual universities.
That Luther would condemn as damned all those who did not hold to the Real Presence would probably be for a different post.
Thanks for your response.
Now wait a minute Dave! Are you saying that Melanchthon could have literally demanded his own (later) execution? Now THAT is intolerance! How can you possibly reason with people like that?
Via the subject of intolerance, Topper segues (I hate that word!) to the actual subject of the thread; Martin Luther, to discuss Luther’s intolerance.
“His (Luther’s) views altered in 1530. After a Mandate had been issued in the Saxon Electorate against the 4 secret preachers and conventicles, Anabaptists and other baneful novel teaching," six Anabaptists were executed early in the year at Reinhardsbrunn in the duchy of Saxe-Gotha. The discussion which took place on this event gave Melanchthon occasion to declare in Feb., 1530, that, “even though the Anabaptists do not advocate anything seditious or openly blasphemous” it was, “in his opinion, the duty of the authorities to put them to death.” In the spring of 1530, with the Anabaptists in his mind, Luther, in his commentary on Ps. Jxxxii. dealt with the question whether the authorities "ought to forbid strange teachings or heresies and punish them, seeing that no one should or can force men into the Faith.”
His detailed reply to the question which it was then impossible any longer to blink, centers round the distinction he makes of two kinds of heretics, viz. those who were seditious, and those who merely " teach the opposite of some clear article of faith." Of the latter, i.e. the non-revolutionary, he says expressly: “These also must not be allowed but must be punished like public blasphemers." Of those, who, though holding no office, themselves in as preachers, and thus imperil the faith and lead to risings, he writes, that their oath of allegiance obliged the burghers not to listen to them but rather to report them either to their parson or to the authorities. If such a one will not desist "then let the authorities hand over knaves of that ilk to their proper master, to wit Master Hans " (i.e. the hangman). Grisar VI, pg 249-50
Dave, it appears to me that these six add to the current total of 47. Are we at 53 now?
“Early in October, 1531, agreeably with the Saxon Elector s Mandate, a number of persons suspected of holding Anabaptist views were taken to Eisenach for punishment and were there put to the torture; it was now judged advisable to obtain a fresh memorandum from the Wittenberg theologians.
Accordingly, at the end of 1530, Melanchthon at the instance of the Electoral Court once more took the matter in hand. He drafted a memorandum on the duty of the secular authorities in the matter of religious differences, with particular reference to the Anabaptists. In it he set forth at length the grounds for a regular system of coercion by the sword. Luther, too, set his name to the document with the words: " It pleases me, Martin Luther." Grisar VI, pg 251
In all fairness, Luther did have misgivings, but not such as to resist the temptation to execute the Anabaptists.
Apparently under Luther’s “guidance”, you actually be tortured if you were merely suspected of holding Anabaptist views. That is a perfect example of Lutheran “tolerance”.
“**Between 1530 and 1532 Luther s intolerance comes yet more to the fore; it was indeed his way, when once he had made any view his own, to urge it in the strongest terms. Thus, at the end of 1531, he again alludes to Master Hans: “Those who force themselves in without any office or commission are not worthy of being called false prophets but are vagrants and knaves, who ought to be handed over to the tender mercies of Master Hans.” “It is not allowed that each one should proceed according to his own ideas and set up his own doctrine and fancy himself a sage, and dictate to, and find fault with, others.” "This I call judging of doctrine, which is one of the greatest and most scatheful vices.” **Grisar VI, pg 252-3
Master Hans is the hangman, so when Luther says that someone should be turned over to Master Hans, it means that they are to be hanged. In this case, the crime is doctrinal disagreement with Him. Here he makes the statement that people should not be allowed to set up their own doctrines according to their own ideas. He then states that this “judging” of doctrine is not allowed, but what he really means is that judging of HIS doctrine is not allowed. Somehow he seemed to have forgotten that it was HE who “judged” the WHOLE of 1500 years worth of Christian doctrine.
According to Luther one should not:
- Proceed according to his own ideas
- Set up his own doctrine
- Fancy himself a sage
- Dictate to (others)
- Find fault with (others)
God Bless You Dave, Topper
BTW, as for Dr? White. I happen to have a rather soft spot in my heart for him. His was basically the first book I read in my search for the Truth. My reaction was: “If this is all the better it gets on the Protestant side, then I REALLY need to look seriously at the Catholic Church.” If I remember correctly, the chapter on Sola Scriptura had maybe one reference to actual Scripture on each page. It was pretty shocking.
For the record, most of the Scholars I quote have actual PhD’s from actual universities.
That Luther would condemn as damned all those who did not hold to the Real Presence would probably be for a different post.
T
Topper17
Guest
A good prediction by you James. Your answer was not ‘satisfying’. I remembered that Luther exhorted the princes to slaughter the peasants BEFORE they did so - from the very first moment that I read it. That is not exactly an ‘insignificant detail’ of the history of the Peasant’s War. If I can remember it, it would make sense that others can. It goes directly to the issue of credibility.
I have explained to you that we are not going to be dialoging. Write whatever you want, but if you insist on addressing me as if you expect me to dialogue with you, I will explain my position to you, in detail.
- Status