The Pope on Luther

Thanks to Paul McCain, who posted a transcript of Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks that he gave at the Augustinian cloister in Erfurt, which was where Luther served as a monk.  You should read the whole speech, but here is a sample:

As the Bishop of Rome, it is deeply moving for me to be meeting representatives of Council of the Lutheran Church of Germany here in the ancient Augustinian convent in Erfurt. This is where Luther studied theology. This is where he was ordained a priest in 1507. Against his father’s wishes, he did not continue the study of Law, but instead he studied theology and set off on the path towards priesthood in the Order of Saint Augustine. On this path, he was not simply concerned with this or that. What constantly exercised him was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey.

“How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle. For him theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God.“How do I receive the grace of God?” The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make an impression on me. For who is actually concerned about this today – even among Christians? What does the question of God mean in our lives? In our preaching? Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues. He knows that we are all mere flesh. Insofar as people today believe in an afterlife and a divine judgement at all, nearly everyone presumes for all practical purposes that God is bound to be magnanimous and that ultimately he mercifully overlooks our small failings. But are they really so small, our failings? Is not the world laid waste through the corruption of the great, but also of the small, who think only of their own advantage? Is it not laid waste through the power of drugs, which thrives on the one hand on greed and avarice, and on the other hand on the craving for pleasure of those who become addicted? Is the world not threatened by the growing readiness to use violence, frequently masking itself with claims to religious motivation? Could hunger and poverty so devastate parts of the world if love for God and godly love of neighbour – of his creatures, of men and women – were more alive in us? I could go on. No, evil is no small matter. Were we truly to place God at the centre of our lives, it could not be so powerful. The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – this burning question of Martin Luther must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too. In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther.

Another important point: God, the one God, creator of heaven and earth, is no mere philosophical hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe. This God has a face, and he has spoken to us. He became one of us in the man Jesus Christ – who is both true God and true man. Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture. This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life.

Now perhaps you will say: all well and good, but what has this to do with our ecumenical situation? Could this just be an attempt to talk our way past the urgent problems that are still waiting for practical progress, for concrete results? I would respond by saying that the first and most important thing for ecumenism is that we keep in view just how much we have in common, not losing sight of it amid the pressure towards secularization – everything that makes us Christian in the first place and continues to be our gift and our task. It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds. The great ecumenical step forward of recent decades is that we have become aware of all this common ground and that we acknowledge it as we pray and sing together, as we make our joint commitment to the Christian ethos in our dealings with the world, as we bear common witness to the God of Jesus Christ in this world as our undying foundation.

via The Pope’s Remarks at the Augustinian Cloister in Erfurt | CyberBrethren-A Lutheran Blog.

The pope may hold the office of the antichrist, but he “gets” Luther, including just how Christocentric is his theology.  Read what Rev. McCain has to say about this, including his point that the pope doesn’t minimize our differences–indeed, he stands on clear confession, unlike many ecumenical efforts–while wanting us to stand together against the tides of secularism.

What do we make of this?  (I’d like to hear from Catholics on what they make of this also!)

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    The trouble with ecumenism is that in the end, someone’s viewpoint must prevail.

    There is an intraction, and it is not from our end.

    The Council of Trent has yet to be undone on ‘faith, alone’, and their communion rails are closed to us who have opened our’s to them (well…some of us have).

    They are stuck on the “fact” that they are ALONE are the “true church”.

    And, if nothing else, they are patient and are more than willing to wait us out.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    The trouble with ecumenism is that in the end, someone’s viewpoint must prevail.

    There is an intraction, and it is not from our end.

    The Council of Trent has yet to be undone on ‘faith, alone’, and their communion rails are closed to us who have opened our’s to them (well…some of us have).

    They are stuck on the “fact” that they are ALONE are the “true church”.

    And, if nothing else, they are patient and are more than willing to wait us out.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    A wolf remains a wolf, even if it hasn’t eaten your sheep.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    A wolf remains a wolf, even if it hasn’t eaten your sheep.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Amen to that.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Amen to that.

  • fws

    “No, evil is no small matter. Were we truly to place God at the centre of our lives, it could not be so powerful. ”

    Here is exactly where the error of Rome and all of our Old Adams is.

    You see, the task of TRULY placing God at the center of our lives is our task. And then everything will be better!

    Old Adam is more than willing to go along with this idea. Old Adam is deeply religious and full of faith. So he has faith that if only he pays more attention to what he does in church, to doctrine, to right thinking about Natural Law , rejecting Gnosticism and to making sure that others line up right, Evil will not be so powerful.

    It depends on us, of COURSE I mean (as Old Adam) that NONE of this would be possible at all, even remotely so, withhout the power of the Holy Spirit.

    And with all the coarse problems of morals and doctrine in the church of 1500, Luther, by God’s grace alone, found the solution alone in God’s Grace in Christ. Alone.

    Think a moment.

    Do you think that even the ELCA with their fags and pastors in stillhettos are more of a mess than was the church of 1500?

    Yet Luther managed not to reach for another dollop of morality to fix things. That was where the miracle truly was! He told all to have faith in the power of the Holy Gospel. Alone.

    Yes Luther had ALOT to say about the Law of God. Our confessions are roughly 80-85% about the Law. But that is not where we are pointed to in order to “make evil less powerful”.

    A short time ago, the LCMS held a high level meeting with the ELCA to discuss whether or not the LCMS could continue their joint works of Mercy with the ELCA in the context of the deep concerns the LCMS has with the doctrine and practice of the ELCA.

    And so what was it that the LCMS presented to the ELCA as the urgent thing they should consider to bring them back to orthodoxy and so to “make evil less powerful”?

    Was it a presentation of something “Christocentric” as even the Pope admired? No. Ok then, was it a presentation of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel that the Pope, by the way, does not understand? Nope. The solution to the problems in the ELCA was not there either.

    So what was it that our Paul McCain urged on President Harrison to present to the ELCA as what would fix them?

    It was the classic Roman Catholic Doctrine , now “reevaluated by Lutherans” in the form of a book, that was the chief Scholastic doctrine that our Apology opposes!

    We suggested to the ELCA that all would be well if only they would take the time to understand and embrace the Natural LAW theories of one pagan philosopher Aristotle as baptized by one Saint Thomas Aquinas!

    This is THE solution to “diminish evil” that we presented to the ELCA! So maybe we are not so far from Rome as we think? Or maybe it so happens that a Roman Bishop is actually understanding the Holy Gospel better than some leaders in the LCMS?

  • fws

    “No, evil is no small matter. Were we truly to place God at the centre of our lives, it could not be so powerful. ”

    Here is exactly where the error of Rome and all of our Old Adams is.

    You see, the task of TRULY placing God at the center of our lives is our task. And then everything will be better!

    Old Adam is more than willing to go along with this idea. Old Adam is deeply religious and full of faith. So he has faith that if only he pays more attention to what he does in church, to doctrine, to right thinking about Natural Law , rejecting Gnosticism and to making sure that others line up right, Evil will not be so powerful.

    It depends on us, of COURSE I mean (as Old Adam) that NONE of this would be possible at all, even remotely so, withhout the power of the Holy Spirit.

    And with all the coarse problems of morals and doctrine in the church of 1500, Luther, by God’s grace alone, found the solution alone in God’s Grace in Christ. Alone.

    Think a moment.

    Do you think that even the ELCA with their fags and pastors in stillhettos are more of a mess than was the church of 1500?

    Yet Luther managed not to reach for another dollop of morality to fix things. That was where the miracle truly was! He told all to have faith in the power of the Holy Gospel. Alone.

    Yes Luther had ALOT to say about the Law of God. Our confessions are roughly 80-85% about the Law. But that is not where we are pointed to in order to “make evil less powerful”.

    A short time ago, the LCMS held a high level meeting with the ELCA to discuss whether or not the LCMS could continue their joint works of Mercy with the ELCA in the context of the deep concerns the LCMS has with the doctrine and practice of the ELCA.

    And so what was it that the LCMS presented to the ELCA as the urgent thing they should consider to bring them back to orthodoxy and so to “make evil less powerful”?

    Was it a presentation of something “Christocentric” as even the Pope admired? No. Ok then, was it a presentation of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel that the Pope, by the way, does not understand? Nope. The solution to the problems in the ELCA was not there either.

    So what was it that our Paul McCain urged on President Harrison to present to the ELCA as what would fix them?

    It was the classic Roman Catholic Doctrine , now “reevaluated by Lutherans” in the form of a book, that was the chief Scholastic doctrine that our Apology opposes!

    We suggested to the ELCA that all would be well if only they would take the time to understand and embrace the Natural LAW theories of one pagan philosopher Aristotle as baptized by one Saint Thomas Aquinas!

    This is THE solution to “diminish evil” that we presented to the ELCA! So maybe we are not so far from Rome as we think? Or maybe it so happens that a Roman Bishop is actually understanding the Holy Gospel better than some leaders in the LCMS?

  • Tom Hering

    You go Frank! :-D

  • Tom Hering

    You go Frank! :-D

  • CRB

    According to SELK pastor, Dr. Gottfried Martens, “Luther never asked this question; its formulation is an invention of pietism.” In a
    article, “Helsinki Reconsidered,” he references in a footnote: Martin Schmidt, “Der Pietismus und das moderne Denken” Pietismus und moderne Welt, AGP vol. 12, ed. Kurt Aland (Luther-Verlag, 1974) 9.

  • CRB

    According to SELK pastor, Dr. Gottfried Martens, “Luther never asked this question; its formulation is an invention of pietism.” In a
    article, “Helsinki Reconsidered,” he references in a footnote: Martin Schmidt, “Der Pietismus und das moderne Denken” Pietismus und moderne Welt, AGP vol. 12, ed. Kurt Aland (Luther-Verlag, 1974) 9.

  • Jonathan

    Slightly off topic, Frank, but what would you offer ELCA instead of natural law?

  • Jonathan

    Slightly off topic, Frank, but what would you offer ELCA instead of natural law?

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Yeah, Ratzinger is an odd duck for a pope. Going to baptist seminary we had to read some of his stuff. Some really, really good scholarship.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Yeah, Ratzinger is an odd duck for a pope. Going to baptist seminary we had to read some of his stuff. Some really, really good scholarship.

  • George A. Marquart

    Pope Benedict XVI is no different from any politician; to every audience he says what they want to hear, regardless of whether he, himself, believes it. Of course he does not have to run for election. So what is his objective? To increase the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church and to fill the coffers that have been emptied because of the many settlements due to the sexual misconduct of priests. How do I know this is true? Just compare the speech he made at the Etzelsbach Marian Shrine to the one made in Erfurt. If somehow his speeches had been reversed, we would not be talking about how “he stands on clear confession, unlike many ecumenical efforts–while wanting us to stand together against the tides of secularism.” We would instead realize that, inasmuch as he is an enemy of the Gospel, we should not get all teary-eyed because he says some things at a Lutheran “holy place” that make him sound as if he were one of us.

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • George A. Marquart

    Pope Benedict XVI is no different from any politician; to every audience he says what they want to hear, regardless of whether he, himself, believes it. Of course he does not have to run for election. So what is his objective? To increase the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church and to fill the coffers that have been emptied because of the many settlements due to the sexual misconduct of priests. How do I know this is true? Just compare the speech he made at the Etzelsbach Marian Shrine to the one made in Erfurt. If somehow his speeches had been reversed, we would not be talking about how “he stands on clear confession, unlike many ecumenical efforts–while wanting us to stand together against the tides of secularism.” We would instead realize that, inasmuch as he is an enemy of the Gospel, we should not get all teary-eyed because he says some things at a Lutheran “holy place” that make him sound as if he were one of us.

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • Dust

    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Aristotle

    Also a mark of successful politicians and really, really good scholarship…really :)

  • Dust

    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Aristotle

    Also a mark of successful politicians and really, really good scholarship…really :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    George (@9) said, “compare the speech he made at the Etzelsbach Marian Shrine to the one made in Erfurt.”

    Could you provide us a link?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    George (@9) said, “compare the speech he made at the Etzelsbach Marian Shrine to the one made in Erfurt.”

    Could you provide us a link?

  • Grace

    I don’t believe Pope Benedict XVI to be a politician. What this man is trying to do is leader-up the Churches to do a good work. In my experience, this is being done by a great many churches. They feed the poor, they minister to the sick sending medical doctors and nurses to those countries and areas that are in great need. There are organizations such as Samaritans Purse who send enormous amounts of medicine to the neediest parts of the world, including doctors and nurses to administer such medication, HIV/AIDS.

    There are churches and organizations who are responsive to the needs of others, and there are others who turn their eyes, and shut their ears. It is to their shame.

    The Roman Catholic Church can do what they believe to be the right thing, using their vast wealth to help the poor, but they are in no way in a position to ‘leader-up’ the march, using the banner of ‘churches’ – I am not connected to, nor do I agree with ‘ecumenical’ endeavors.

    → idolator

    1. One who worships idols.
    2. One who blindly or excessively admires or adores another.

    → ecumenical

    a. Of or relating to the worldwide Christian church.
    b. Concerned with establishing or promoting unity among churches or religions.

    9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

    10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

    11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

    12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

    13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
    1 Corinthians 5

  • Grace

    I don’t believe Pope Benedict XVI to be a politician. What this man is trying to do is leader-up the Churches to do a good work. In my experience, this is being done by a great many churches. They feed the poor, they minister to the sick sending medical doctors and nurses to those countries and areas that are in great need. There are organizations such as Samaritans Purse who send enormous amounts of medicine to the neediest parts of the world, including doctors and nurses to administer such medication, HIV/AIDS.

    There are churches and organizations who are responsive to the needs of others, and there are others who turn their eyes, and shut their ears. It is to their shame.

    The Roman Catholic Church can do what they believe to be the right thing, using their vast wealth to help the poor, but they are in no way in a position to ‘leader-up’ the march, using the banner of ‘churches’ – I am not connected to, nor do I agree with ‘ecumenical’ endeavors.

    → idolator

    1. One who worships idols.
    2. One who blindly or excessively admires or adores another.

    → ecumenical

    a. Of or relating to the worldwide Christian church.
    b. Concerned with establishing or promoting unity among churches or religions.

    9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

    10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

    11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

    12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

    13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
    1 Corinthians 5

  • l shaffer

    This was the gist of the very last sermon I listened to in my ex-LCMS church: “It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds. The great ecumenical step forward of recent decades is that we have become aware of all this common ground and that we acknowledge it as we pray and sing together…”

    BTW, it was on Reformation Sunday.

  • l shaffer

    This was the gist of the very last sermon I listened to in my ex-LCMS church: “It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds. The great ecumenical step forward of recent decades is that we have become aware of all this common ground and that we acknowledge it as we pray and sing together…”

    BTW, it was on Reformation Sunday.

  • Tom Hering

    Benedict XVI’s homily, Etzelsbach Marian Shrine:

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/benedict-xvi-visits-catholic-enclave-stresses-marian-devotion/

    It’s an answer, I guess, to Luther’s question, “How do I receive the grace of God?” But not an answer Luther would have been happy with, though he himself honored Mary.

    “At the moment of his self-offering for mankind, [Jesus] makes Mary as it were the channel of the rivers of grace that flow from the Cross” (Benedict at Etzelsbach).

    Roman innovation indeed!

  • Tom Hering

    Benedict XVI’s homily, Etzelsbach Marian Shrine:

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/benedict-xvi-visits-catholic-enclave-stresses-marian-devotion/

    It’s an answer, I guess, to Luther’s question, “How do I receive the grace of God?” But not an answer Luther would have been happy with, though he himself honored Mary.

    “At the moment of his self-offering for mankind, [Jesus] makes Mary as it were the channel of the rivers of grace that flow from the Cross” (Benedict at Etzelsbach).

    Roman innovation indeed!

  • Joe

    I really don’t get the Mary stuff.

  • Joe

    I really don’t get the Mary stuff.

  • Grace

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace.Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.”

    Martin Luther(Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521)

    “through her to God” ?

    There is not one piece of Scripture that tells us we are to go through Mary to God. The Word of God is explicit !

    For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

    1 Timothy 2:5

    - “one mediator” – Mary is not a ‘mediator’ from mankind to Jesus Christ.

    Mary isn’t mentioned in even the slightest way, that anyone should go “through her to God” – Luther however, decided differently, without understanding what the Bible states.

  • Grace

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace.Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.”

    Martin Luther(Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521)

    “through her to God” ?

    There is not one piece of Scripture that tells us we are to go through Mary to God. The Word of God is explicit !

    For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

    1 Timothy 2:5

    - “one mediator” – Mary is not a ‘mediator’ from mankind to Jesus Christ.

    Mary isn’t mentioned in even the slightest way, that anyone should go “through her to God” – Luther however, decided differently, without understanding what the Bible states.

  • Grace

    Joe @15

    “I really don’t get the Mary stuff.”

    I don’t either!

  • Grace

    Joe @15

    “I really don’t get the Mary stuff.”

    I don’t either!

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, you never pass up the chance to attack Luther. But you always pass up the chance to look just a little more deeply into a matter. In this case, how Luther’s views changed over time.

    Ten years later, 1531, Christmas Sermon: “[Mary is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ … She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still, honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.”

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, you never pass up the chance to attack Luther. But you always pass up the chance to look just a little more deeply into a matter. In this case, how Luther’s views changed over time.

    Ten years later, 1531, Christmas Sermon: “[Mary is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ … She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still, honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.”

  • Grace

    Tom @18

    You posted: “Ten years later, 1531, Christmas Sermon: “[Mary is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ … She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still, honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.”

    How does what you have posted, negate Luther’s statement earlier?

  • Grace

    Tom @18

    You posted: “Ten years later, 1531, Christmas Sermon: “[Mary is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ … She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still, honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.”

    How does what you have posted, negate Luther’s statement earlier?

  • Grace

    Tom @18

    Quoting Martin Luther shouldn’t bother you. Luther must have believed what he stated and wrote –

    Quoting Martin Luther isn’t an “attack Luther” moment, it’s what the man believed and stated.

  • Grace

    Tom @18

    Quoting Martin Luther shouldn’t bother you. Luther must have believed what he stated and wrote –

    Quoting Martin Luther isn’t an “attack Luther” moment, it’s what the man believed and stated.

  • kenneth

    I wonder how many died because they idolized Mary of Nazereth? Christ alone will save—past- present- or future on the basis of faith. Lutheran and Luther win–plus any repentant lovers of God. It is me-us-you-and-them…all in faith praising Jesus- our only savior. Denominations gone.

  • kenneth

    I wonder how many died because they idolized Mary of Nazereth? Christ alone will save—past- present- or future on the basis of faith. Lutheran and Luther win–plus any repentant lovers of God. It is me-us-you-and-them…all in faith praising Jesus- our only savior. Denominations gone.

  • Tom Hering

    “Luther must have believed what he stated and wrote …”

    Of course. At the time he wrote it. But men change. You embarrass yourself, Grace, by preferring – in Luther’s case – to ignore this little fact.

  • Tom Hering

    “Luther must have believed what he stated and wrote …”

    Of course. At the time he wrote it. But men change. You embarrass yourself, Grace, by preferring – in Luther’s case – to ignore this little fact.

  • Grace

    Tom @ 22

    Please tell us when Martin Luther changed his mind about Mary? Can you quote and give reference to such a statement? – not just a vague comment, but a change of mind regarding Mary!

  • Grace

    Tom @ 22

    Please tell us when Martin Luther changed his mind about Mary? Can you quote and give reference to such a statement? – not just a vague comment, but a change of mind regarding Mary!

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, are these helpful?

    “No one can deny that by such saint worship we have now come to the point where we have actually made utter idols of the Mother of God and the saints, and that because of the service we have rendered and the works we have performed in their honor we have sought comfort more with them than with Christ Himself. Thereby faith in Christ has been destroyed.” [Martin Luther, D.Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke 11:415 quoted in MartinLuther, What Luther Says, Vol. III, ed. Ewald Martin Plass (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 1254].

    “I beseech in Christ that your preachers forbear entering upon questions concerning the saints in heaven and the deceased, and I ask you to turn the attention of people away from these matters in view of the fact … that they are neither profitable nor necessary for salvation. This is also reason why God decided not to let us know anything about His dealings with the deceased. Surely he is not committing a sin who does not call upon any saint but only clings firmly to the one mediator, Jesus Christ.” [Martin Luther, “Letter to Erfurt evangelists July 10, 1522,” What Luther Says, Vol. 1, 1253. ]

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, are these helpful?

    “No one can deny that by such saint worship we have now come to the point where we have actually made utter idols of the Mother of God and the saints, and that because of the service we have rendered and the works we have performed in their honor we have sought comfort more with them than with Christ Himself. Thereby faith in Christ has been destroyed.” [Martin Luther, D.Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke 11:415 quoted in MartinLuther, What Luther Says, Vol. III, ed. Ewald Martin Plass (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 1254].

    “I beseech in Christ that your preachers forbear entering upon questions concerning the saints in heaven and the deceased, and I ask you to turn the attention of people away from these matters in view of the fact … that they are neither profitable nor necessary for salvation. This is also reason why God decided not to let us know anything about His dealings with the deceased. Surely he is not committing a sin who does not call upon any saint but only clings firmly to the one mediator, Jesus Christ.” [Martin Luther, “Letter to Erfurt evangelists July 10, 1522,” What Luther Says, Vol. 1, 1253. ]

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@20):

    Quoting Martin Luther isn’t an “attack Luther” moment, it’s what the man believed and stated.

    Oh please. We’ve read your schtick here enough, Grace, to know what you think of Luther. You’re clearly attacking the man’s statements.

    But, as you almost always do, you show very little understanding of what your quote means. You always quote that same collection of sentences, which gives me good reason to suspect that it’s the sum total of what you’ve read from Luther’s explanation of the Magnificat.

    I further suspect this because, after all of a few minutes to track down a copy myself and read the context around the bit you love to quote, it’s obvious that it doesn’t say what you want us to think it says. And what’s more, your supposed single quote is, at best, a piecemeal collection (actually, I can’t locate most of your quote in his explanation; nor I suspect can you).

    Here, try actually reading it:

    Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; he should then marvel at the exceeding abundant grace of God Who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and praise God for His grace, and drawn to look for all good things to Him, Who does not reject but graciously regards poor and despised and lowly mortals. Thus your heart will be strengthened in faith and love and hope. What, think you, would please her more than to have you thus come through her to God, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God. Again, nothing would please her better than to have you turn in fear from all lofty things on which men set their hearts, seeing that even in His mother God neither found nor desired aught of high degree.

    Honestly, Grace. Do you have any interest in what Luther actually wrote, or do you just want to pass on something you copied from someone with an axe to grind?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@20):

    Quoting Martin Luther isn’t an “attack Luther” moment, it’s what the man believed and stated.

    Oh please. We’ve read your schtick here enough, Grace, to know what you think of Luther. You’re clearly attacking the man’s statements.

    But, as you almost always do, you show very little understanding of what your quote means. You always quote that same collection of sentences, which gives me good reason to suspect that it’s the sum total of what you’ve read from Luther’s explanation of the Magnificat.

    I further suspect this because, after all of a few minutes to track down a copy myself and read the context around the bit you love to quote, it’s obvious that it doesn’t say what you want us to think it says. And what’s more, your supposed single quote is, at best, a piecemeal collection (actually, I can’t locate most of your quote in his explanation; nor I suspect can you).

    Here, try actually reading it:

    Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; he should then marvel at the exceeding abundant grace of God Who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and praise God for His grace, and drawn to look for all good things to Him, Who does not reject but graciously regards poor and despised and lowly mortals. Thus your heart will be strengthened in faith and love and hope. What, think you, would please her more than to have you thus come through her to God, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God. Again, nothing would please her better than to have you turn in fear from all lofty things on which men set their hearts, seeing that even in His mother God neither found nor desired aught of high degree.

    Honestly, Grace. Do you have any interest in what Luther actually wrote, or do you just want to pass on something you copied from someone with an axe to grind?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Yes, Grace, this is NOTHING like the Roman Catholic approach to Mary as an intermediary in heaven, even as a “co-redemptrix.” Luther is saying in this quotation that we should learn from her humility, her faith, and her trust in the grace (Grace!) of God. He is even alluding to the Roman Catholic views and turning them upside down. They portray her as exalted; Luther and Mary herself stress her “low estate.” We don’t go “through her to God” in the sense of praying to her and doing Marian rituals, but only “thus”: to marvel at the exceeding abundant grace of God Who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal.”

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Yes, Grace, this is NOTHING like the Roman Catholic approach to Mary as an intermediary in heaven, even as a “co-redemptrix.” Luther is saying in this quotation that we should learn from her humility, her faith, and her trust in the grace (Grace!) of God. He is even alluding to the Roman Catholic views and turning them upside down. They portray her as exalted; Luther and Mary herself stress her “low estate.” We don’t go “through her to God” in the sense of praying to her and doing Marian rituals, but only “thus”: to marvel at the exceeding abundant grace of God Who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal.”

  • Grace

    tODD

    I have posted many of the SAME quotes in posts on this blog – I’m sure everyone knows that. :lol:

  • Grace

    tODD

    I have posted many of the SAME quotes in posts on this blog – I’m sure everyone knows that. :lol:

  • Grace

    Dr. Veith,

    I don’t totally agree with you. Luther believed Mary to be sinless which she was not. Of course one can make excues for that as well.

    It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin Martin Luther

    Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” December 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer,

    Mary was born sinful just as all the rest of mankind –

    46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

    47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

    48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

    49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

    50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. Luke 1

    Mary needed a Savior just as ALL of us do, we are all born as sinners

    22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

    23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3

    All who “believe” – All have “sinned” – Everyone including Mary had/have sinned.

  • Grace

    Dr. Veith,

    I don’t totally agree with you. Luther believed Mary to be sinless which she was not. Of course one can make excues for that as well.

    It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin Martin Luther

    Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” December 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer,

    Mary was born sinful just as all the rest of mankind –

    46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

    47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

    48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

    49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

    50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. Luke 1

    Mary needed a Savior just as ALL of us do, we are all born as sinners

    22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

    23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3

    All who “believe” – All have “sinned” – Everyone including Mary had/have sinned.

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Ah, Grace (@27). Again with the non-response response? The questions are (1) WHY do you keep posting that “quote”, and (2) where did you get it?

    I don’t know your answers, but I know what they’re not: (1) certainly not because you were actually reading Luther’s words in context and wanted to understand what he was saying. (2) Not from a complete translation of Luther’s explanation.

    Please stop spreading misinformation, Grace.

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Ah, Grace (@27). Again with the non-response response? The questions are (1) WHY do you keep posting that “quote”, and (2) where did you get it?

    I don’t know your answers, but I know what they’re not: (1) certainly not because you were actually reading Luther’s words in context and wanted to understand what he was saying. (2) Not from a complete translation of Luther’s explanation.

    Please stop spreading misinformation, Grace.

  • fws

    Jonathan @ 7

    I would offer the ELCA a clear distinction of Law and Gospel that is taught by our Lutheran Confessions.
    The ELCA does not lack the Law.

    That would be impossible because Scripture tells us that the Law is written in the Reason even of those without bibles. Indeed, sometimes the ELCA shows more fruit of the Law (Goodness and Mercy ) than the LCMS in how they deal with homosexuals. So giving the Roman Catholic version of the Law is not really going to be helpful here Jonathan.

    I hope you are clear on this point Jonathan:
    Antinomianism is where christians say that the Law of God no longer applies to them. This does NOT mean that the Law goes away! It remains and accuses. So then what does an antinomian do? He calls the Law by a different name! He starts to talk about “gospel encouragement” “Gospel reminders” or “gospel exhortations”. This indeed is , in fact, how some in the LCMS think the “third use of the Law” works. It is a Law that does not accuse but rather is some “gospel” thing!

    The ELCA, being more modern calls Law things like “inclusiveness” and “acceptance” and such “Gospel.” They mistake the mercy that the Law demands of us for the Mercy that alone is in Christ and alone is the Holy Gospel. So they welcome homosexuals (and they should!) and then withhold the Gospel that alone can give them the forgiveness that they need! What a shame!

    But we in the LCMS need to get our own ducks in a row here before we will be of any use to the ELCA or even our own selves here.

    Where the ELCA errs is that they think that the Goodness and Mercy that the Law demands of us is the Holy Gospel. I suppose that is because Mercy is always undeserved, so it can seem like the Gospel.
    It seems that many in the LCMS have bought into the Roman and Evangelical error that things that only people with bibles or belief in a god havethe Law of God , so we think we need to become “Law missionaries” to the ELCA. That is just wierdness.

  • fws

    Jonathan @ 7

    I would offer the ELCA a clear distinction of Law and Gospel that is taught by our Lutheran Confessions.
    The ELCA does not lack the Law.

    That would be impossible because Scripture tells us that the Law is written in the Reason even of those without bibles. Indeed, sometimes the ELCA shows more fruit of the Law (Goodness and Mercy ) than the LCMS in how they deal with homosexuals. So giving the Roman Catholic version of the Law is not really going to be helpful here Jonathan.

    I hope you are clear on this point Jonathan:
    Antinomianism is where christians say that the Law of God no longer applies to them. This does NOT mean that the Law goes away! It remains and accuses. So then what does an antinomian do? He calls the Law by a different name! He starts to talk about “gospel encouragement” “Gospel reminders” or “gospel exhortations”. This indeed is , in fact, how some in the LCMS think the “third use of the Law” works. It is a Law that does not accuse but rather is some “gospel” thing!

    The ELCA, being more modern calls Law things like “inclusiveness” and “acceptance” and such “Gospel.” They mistake the mercy that the Law demands of us for the Mercy that alone is in Christ and alone is the Holy Gospel. So they welcome homosexuals (and they should!) and then withhold the Gospel that alone can give them the forgiveness that they need! What a shame!

    But we in the LCMS need to get our own ducks in a row here before we will be of any use to the ELCA or even our own selves here.

    Where the ELCA errs is that they think that the Goodness and Mercy that the Law demands of us is the Holy Gospel. I suppose that is because Mercy is always undeserved, so it can seem like the Gospel.
    It seems that many in the LCMS have bought into the Roman and Evangelical error that things that only people with bibles or belief in a god havethe Law of God , so we think we need to become “Law missionaries” to the ELCA. That is just wierdness.

  • Grace

    tODD @ 29

    Instead of whining, why don’t you research the material I post? Just as you didn’t know what “Replacment Theology” is, (most everyone does know) you might try researching.

    As you complained just over a week ago:

    tODD @ 73

    Grace (@56), I had to look up “Replacement Theology”, which appears to be some label you’ve slapped on my quotes from Romans in an attempt to deny what Paul has plainly written. I’m not making “excuses”, I’m reading what God inspired Paul to write.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/09/15/what-would-a-theocracy-look-like/#comments

    And then you thought it was “which appears to be some label you’ve slapped on my quotes ” – with that, I doubt you know what it means even now.

  • Grace

    tODD @ 29

    Instead of whining, why don’t you research the material I post? Just as you didn’t know what “Replacment Theology” is, (most everyone does know) you might try researching.

    As you complained just over a week ago:

    tODD @ 73

    Grace (@56), I had to look up “Replacement Theology”, which appears to be some label you’ve slapped on my quotes from Romans in an attempt to deny what Paul has plainly written. I’m not making “excuses”, I’m reading what God inspired Paul to write.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/09/15/what-would-a-theocracy-look-like/#comments

    And then you thought it was “which appears to be some label you’ve slapped on my quotes ” – with that, I doubt you know what it means even now.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 28, instead of defending your assertion that Luther believed Mary is our mediator, you now change the subject to what Luther believed about immaculate conception. I guess if you can’t refute the evidence we’ve presented against your original assertion, all you can do is raise irrelevant points.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 28, instead of defending your assertion that Luther believed Mary is our mediator, you now change the subject to what Luther believed about immaculate conception. I guess if you can’t refute the evidence we’ve presented against your original assertion, all you can do is raise irrelevant points.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    Luther had more than a few things wrong Scripturally –

    When a thread such as this comes on the blog, it will draw attention to both the Pope and Luther. Having said that, it should be no surprise that the statements both the Pope and Luther made, will surface.

    We can zero in on “ecumenical” – however in some instances the difference is to great, and divides denominations and churches. It brings us back to the book of Revelation and the seven churches. Study of those passages isn’t easy, but it does give us great knowledge as to the differences, and how they might apply today.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    Luther had more than a few things wrong Scripturally –

    When a thread such as this comes on the blog, it will draw attention to both the Pope and Luther. Having said that, it should be no surprise that the statements both the Pope and Luther made, will surface.

    We can zero in on “ecumenical” – however in some instances the difference is to great, and divides denominations and churches. It brings us back to the book of Revelation and the seven churches. Study of those passages isn’t easy, but it does give us great knowledge as to the differences, and how they might apply today.

  • Grace

    Tom @ 32

    YOU WROTE: “I guess if you can’t refute the evidence we’ve presented against your original assertion, all you can do is raise irrelevant points.”

    “The idea that Mary was “sinless” is not “irrelevant” – “immaculate conception” Luther believed this, do you Tom, do you believe that Mary was sinless.

  • Grace

    Tom @ 32

    YOU WROTE: “I guess if you can’t refute the evidence we’ve presented against your original assertion, all you can do is raise irrelevant points.”

    “The idea that Mary was “sinless” is not “irrelevant” – “immaculate conception” Luther believed this, do you Tom, do you believe that Mary was sinless.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Here’s one Lutheran who absolutely loves Luther…but does not agree with everything he said.

    Mary, sinless?

    You have got to be kidding.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Here’s one Lutheran who absolutely loves Luther…but does not agree with everything he said.

    Mary, sinless?

    You have got to be kidding.

  • Tom Hering

    “When a thread such as this comes on the blog, it will draw attention to both the Pope and Luther. Having said that, it should be no surprise that the statements both the Pope and Luther made, will surface.”

    It would be nice if the statements you bring to the surface had something to do with whether or not the Pope “gets” Luther.

  • Tom Hering

    “When a thread such as this comes on the blog, it will draw attention to both the Pope and Luther. Having said that, it should be no surprise that the statements both the Pope and Luther made, will surface.”

    It would be nice if the statements you bring to the surface had something to do with whether or not the Pope “gets” Luther.

  • Grace

    Tom @36

    YOU WROTE: “It would be nice if the statements you bring to the surface had something to do with whether or not the Pope “gets” Luther.”

    There is no UNITY, there never will be. The reason for this is; Scripturally, there are great chasms that exist, even within the same denomination or group. Some wish to ‘excuse the words of those who are ‘prominent leaders or founders, and still others, raised within a denomination or group cannot imagine themselves actually examining their doctrine, using ONLY the BIBLE.

  • Grace

    Tom @36

    YOU WROTE: “It would be nice if the statements you bring to the surface had something to do with whether or not the Pope “gets” Luther.”

    There is no UNITY, there never will be. The reason for this is; Scripturally, there are great chasms that exist, even within the same denomination or group. Some wish to ‘excuse the words of those who are ‘prominent leaders or founders, and still others, raised within a denomination or group cannot imagine themselves actually examining their doctrine, using ONLY the BIBLE.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    The “Pope “gets” Luther.” – isn’t the problem, it’s the church, the ones who have forsaken Scripture in favor of ‘tradition’
    church leaders who have written volumes of books on their beliefs, … the congregants unwilling to study the Bible for themselves.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    The “Pope “gets” Luther.” – isn’t the problem, it’s the church, the ones who have forsaken Scripture in favor of ‘tradition’
    church leaders who have written volumes of books on their beliefs, … the congregants unwilling to study the Bible for themselves.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@31):

    Instead of whining, why don’t you research the material I post?

    Well if I did, there’d be one person researching the material you posted! :) Seriously, I wish you’d do the research. Because your ignorance on the topic is showing.

    Which is made all the more clear by your subsequent, total, obvious dodge where you decided to change the topic to some other thread and my not knowing a particular term. Please.

    You’re copying-and-pasting sentences you neither understand nor have even read in context. And you refuse to tell us where you’re getting these (apparently partially fabricated) quotes from — perhaps because it would embarrass both of us.

    Anyhow, until you deign to actually return to the topic that you brought up, I consider it clearly demonstrated from the actual context that Luther’s “through her to God” quote meant nothing like what you made it out to say.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@31):

    Instead of whining, why don’t you research the material I post?

    Well if I did, there’d be one person researching the material you posted! :) Seriously, I wish you’d do the research. Because your ignorance on the topic is showing.

    Which is made all the more clear by your subsequent, total, obvious dodge where you decided to change the topic to some other thread and my not knowing a particular term. Please.

    You’re copying-and-pasting sentences you neither understand nor have even read in context. And you refuse to tell us where you’re getting these (apparently partially fabricated) quotes from — perhaps because it would embarrass both of us.

    Anyhow, until you deign to actually return to the topic that you brought up, I consider it clearly demonstrated from the actual context that Luther’s “through her to God” quote meant nothing like what you made it out to say.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, it seems to me you’ve admitted – @ 33 – that the mere mention of Luther’s name is reason enough for you to rant against Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism. Regardless of what the discussion is actually about. Do you know what “boorish” means?

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, it seems to me you’ve admitted – @ 33 – that the mere mention of Luther’s name is reason enough for you to rant against Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism. Regardless of what the discussion is actually about. Do you know what “boorish” means?

  • Grace

    Tom @40

    YOU WROTE: “it seems to me you’ve admitted – @ 33 – that the mere mention of Luther’s name is reason enough for you to rant against Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism.”

    I WROTE @ 33 it will draw attention to both the Pope and Luther

    LOL, you do like to twist what can’t be turned.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Moving on to a different topic you’ve decided to argue about (at least until you are shown your errors, I suppose), Grace (@28) …

    You said “Luther believed Mary to be sinless”. Hey, if you want to engage in a battle of Web quotes pasted in ignorance, here’s one for you:

    Luther stated, “Mary was born of parents in sin as other human beings” (WA 49, 173).

    (Pro tip: “WA” refers to the Weimar edition of Luther’s works, but I’m sure a Luther scholar like you already knew that. Here, I found you an online copy.)

    Anyhow, all that misses the larger point, which is that you’re the only one here who cares what Luther may have thought at some point in his life. Lutherans don’t. I mean, we’re interested in correcting the record when someone posts obvious falsehoods about Luther — but only in the interest of facts, not because we subscribe to everything the man wrote.

    No, you think this all proves something. I have no idea what. I’m still waiting for you to tell us where you’re getting all your wonderfully researched quotes from.

  • Grace

    Tom @40

    YOU WROTE: “it seems to me you’ve admitted – @ 33 – that the mere mention of Luther’s name is reason enough for you to rant against Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism.”

    I WROTE @ 33 it will draw attention to both the Pope and Luther

    LOL, you do like to twist what can’t be turned.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Moving on to a different topic you’ve decided to argue about (at least until you are shown your errors, I suppose), Grace (@28) …

    You said “Luther believed Mary to be sinless”. Hey, if you want to engage in a battle of Web quotes pasted in ignorance, here’s one for you:

    Luther stated, “Mary was born of parents in sin as other human beings” (WA 49, 173).

    (Pro tip: “WA” refers to the Weimar edition of Luther’s works, but I’m sure a Luther scholar like you already knew that. Here, I found you an online copy.)

    Anyhow, all that misses the larger point, which is that you’re the only one here who cares what Luther may have thought at some point in his life. Lutherans don’t. I mean, we’re interested in correcting the record when someone posts obvious falsehoods about Luther — but only in the interest of facts, not because we subscribe to everything the man wrote.

    No, you think this all proves something. I have no idea what. I’m still waiting for you to tell us where you’re getting all your wonderfully researched quotes from.

  • Tom Hering

    “LOL, you do like to twist what can’t be turned.”

    Nah. But I would pull your finger. In the hope of hearing something from you that makes more sense to me. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    “LOL, you do like to twist what can’t be turned.”

    Nah. But I would pull your finger. In the hope of hearing something from you that makes more sense to me. :-D

  • Grace

    tODD @ 42

    “Anyhow, all that misses the larger point, which is that you’re the only one here who cares what Luther may have thought at some point in his life. Lutherans don’t.

    You may wish that to be true, but it’s far from truth. The internet has opened up an enormous amount of knowledge to ALL, that includes those who have been ‘pedestaled’ within churches,…. (there is a list, dating back centuries, including the RCC) who’s deeds have been un-noticed until the past two dozen plus years or so. That is the very reason non-denominational churches have grown.

    Individuals who seek the real meaning of life, the LORD, what the Bible really states, are not interested in anything but the TRUTH. Many were raised in denominations, which they have found to be lacking, both in doctrinal accuracy, and excuses for those the same.

    Many people are now turning to the ONLY book in the world that can give them hope, and that is the Word of God, the Bible. They aren’t interested in anything else. They are HUNGRY for who God is, and how they can know the truth.

    Just as you had no idea what “REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY” was defined, … you don’t know the climate within the world of those who seek the TRUTH, not a lot of books, or men’s ideas, but what the Bible actually states.
    .

  • Grace

    tODD @ 42

    “Anyhow, all that misses the larger point, which is that you’re the only one here who cares what Luther may have thought at some point in his life. Lutherans don’t.

    You may wish that to be true, but it’s far from truth. The internet has opened up an enormous amount of knowledge to ALL, that includes those who have been ‘pedestaled’ within churches,…. (there is a list, dating back centuries, including the RCC) who’s deeds have been un-noticed until the past two dozen plus years or so. That is the very reason non-denominational churches have grown.

    Individuals who seek the real meaning of life, the LORD, what the Bible really states, are not interested in anything but the TRUTH. Many were raised in denominations, which they have found to be lacking, both in doctrinal accuracy, and excuses for those the same.

    Many people are now turning to the ONLY book in the world that can give them hope, and that is the Word of God, the Bible. They aren’t interested in anything else. They are HUNGRY for who God is, and how they can know the truth.

    Just as you had no idea what “REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY” was defined, … you don’t know the climate within the world of those who seek the TRUTH, not a lot of books, or men’s ideas, but what the Bible actually states.
    .

  • Tom Hering

    So why do they keep getting it so wrong, Grace?

  • Tom Hering

    So why do they keep getting it so wrong, Grace?

  • Grace

    Tom @ 45

    They don’t have it “wrong” – they might not know the truth, but they certainly have been able to research what isn’t the truth.

    It’s better to search for the truth, then hang unto something that doesn’t measure up to Scripture, for any reason. God gave us each a mind, to search the truth, to study –

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    2 Timothy 2:15

    That means God’s Word, the Bible.

  • Grace

    Tom @ 45

    They don’t have it “wrong” – they might not know the truth, but they certainly have been able to research what isn’t the truth.

    It’s better to search for the truth, then hang unto something that doesn’t measure up to Scripture, for any reason. God gave us each a mind, to search the truth, to study –

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    2 Timothy 2:15

    That means God’s Word, the Bible.

  • Tom Hering

    Yes, it does mean God’s Word, Grace. But again, why do they keep getting God’s Word so wrong?

  • Tom Hering

    Yes, it does mean God’s Word, Grace. But again, why do they keep getting God’s Word so wrong?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@44) said:

    The internet has opened up an enormous amount of knowledge to ALL

    And you have demonstrated as well as anyone why merely having access to large amounts of information doesn’t actually make one well informed.

    Seriously, you speak of “an enormous amount of knowledge”, but you keep quoting from what appears to be one of a handful of anti-Lutheran websites — the quotes from which are apparently partially spurious, not that you’ve read them in context in order to understand them, anyhow. Of what value is all that information to you, Grace, if you won’t read it and don’t understand it?

    who’s [sic] deeds have been un-noticed [sic] until the past two dozen plus years or so

    Are you serious? Just because you’ve come to learn about them in the past couple of decades doesn’t mean no one else has been discussing such things. You have a bad habit of ascribing to “most people” what is mainly only true for you.

    That is the very reason non-denominational churches have grown.

    Oh, really? Non-denominational churches have grown … because of the Internet? That’s … whatever, it’s about as reasonable as anything else you’ve said on this post.

    Listen, Grace, we’ve already discussed a few significant skeletons in the closet of your denomination. You know how to dismiss the foibles of your own denomination’s founders. But you’re remarkably uncharitable when it comes to others’ — well, uncharitable and ill-informed. Never the best combo.

    I’m also aware that you don’t merely turn to the Bible solely. You’ve quoted Matthew Henry for us plenty for me to understand how you play this game. You listen to the teaching of men when it suits you, and then you decry the same when it also suits you.

    You even ignore Scripture when it suits you — or need I remind you of John 20:23? (Please don’t whine about my bringing it up on the same thread in which you’re once again rehashing some old, tired points of yours that you’ve written about many times before.)

    Anyhow, again, I’m aware of your tendency to hide behind proclamations of what “many people” are doing, pretending that you’re speaking for more people than yourself. It’s not convincing. I realize that many within your denomination likely agree with you. But I also have been made aware that there are those, even in your own denomination, who do not agree with you, especially when it comes to your attacks on Luther.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@44) said:

    The internet has opened up an enormous amount of knowledge to ALL

    And you have demonstrated as well as anyone why merely having access to large amounts of information doesn’t actually make one well informed.

    Seriously, you speak of “an enormous amount of knowledge”, but you keep quoting from what appears to be one of a handful of anti-Lutheran websites — the quotes from which are apparently partially spurious, not that you’ve read them in context in order to understand them, anyhow. Of what value is all that information to you, Grace, if you won’t read it and don’t understand it?

    who’s [sic] deeds have been un-noticed [sic] until the past two dozen plus years or so

    Are you serious? Just because you’ve come to learn about them in the past couple of decades doesn’t mean no one else has been discussing such things. You have a bad habit of ascribing to “most people” what is mainly only true for you.

    That is the very reason non-denominational churches have grown.

    Oh, really? Non-denominational churches have grown … because of the Internet? That’s … whatever, it’s about as reasonable as anything else you’ve said on this post.

    Listen, Grace, we’ve already discussed a few significant skeletons in the closet of your denomination. You know how to dismiss the foibles of your own denomination’s founders. But you’re remarkably uncharitable when it comes to others’ — well, uncharitable and ill-informed. Never the best combo.

    I’m also aware that you don’t merely turn to the Bible solely. You’ve quoted Matthew Henry for us plenty for me to understand how you play this game. You listen to the teaching of men when it suits you, and then you decry the same when it also suits you.

    You even ignore Scripture when it suits you — or need I remind you of John 20:23? (Please don’t whine about my bringing it up on the same thread in which you’re once again rehashing some old, tired points of yours that you’ve written about many times before.)

    Anyhow, again, I’m aware of your tendency to hide behind proclamations of what “many people” are doing, pretending that you’re speaking for more people than yourself. It’s not convincing. I realize that many within your denomination likely agree with you. But I also have been made aware that there are those, even in your own denomination, who do not agree with you, especially when it comes to your attacks on Luther.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@46):

    It’s better to search for the truth, then hang unto [sic] something that doesn’t measure up to Scripture, for any reason. God gave us each a mind, to search the truth, to study –

    What a fascinatingly ironic quote from someone who, on this very thread, is regurgitating half-fabricated, contextless quotes from a website that is poorly researched but quoted from for the sole reason that it has the same bias as the person quoting.

    Would that the person saying this (@46) would, herself, search for the truth, study, and use her God-given mind.

    Oh, but I guess one should only search for the truth when it suits one’s defamatory purpose.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@46):

    It’s better to search for the truth, then hang unto [sic] something that doesn’t measure up to Scripture, for any reason. God gave us each a mind, to search the truth, to study –

    What a fascinatingly ironic quote from someone who, on this very thread, is regurgitating half-fabricated, contextless quotes from a website that is poorly researched but quoted from for the sole reason that it has the same bias as the person quoting.

    Would that the person saying this (@46) would, herself, search for the truth, study, and use her God-given mind.

    Oh, but I guess one should only search for the truth when it suits one’s defamatory purpose.

  • Grace

    The aforementioned tirade @ 48, comes from the guy who needs to use ‘google’ to find the meaning of “Replacement Theology” because he doesn’t understand what it means – and it appears, it continues to escape his understanding.

  • Grace

    The aforementioned tirade @ 48, comes from the guy who needs to use ‘google’ to find the meaning of “Replacement Theology” because he doesn’t understand what it means – and it appears, it continues to escape his understanding.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@50), don’t know if you’ve noticed, but “replacement theology” isn’t the topic here, even by your own standards in which you flit from one Luther-bashing quote-mangling to another as you see fit.

    You clearly have no defense for your accusations against Luther, nor for the spurious quotes with which you hope to back them up.

    But hey, keep trying to change the subject. Maybe I won’t notice next time.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@50), don’t know if you’ve noticed, but “replacement theology” isn’t the topic here, even by your own standards in which you flit from one Luther-bashing quote-mangling to another as you see fit.

    You clearly have no defense for your accusations against Luther, nor for the spurious quotes with which you hope to back them up.

    But hey, keep trying to change the subject. Maybe I won’t notice next time.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    Your constant whine regarding others using websites to obtain information is obtuse. The material, quotes, etc., can be found in the references cited.

    For centuries and decades much of the information was not easily accessed, BUT TODAY it’s much different. This might upset you, but you tODD, are the one on the internet ‘full time’ – lol, it seems rather absurd that you would find fault with the very TOOL you admire and work so hard to manage.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    Your constant whine regarding others using websites to obtain information is obtuse. The material, quotes, etc., can be found in the references cited.

    For centuries and decades much of the information was not easily accessed, BUT TODAY it’s much different. This might upset you, but you tODD, are the one on the internet ‘full time’ – lol, it seems rather absurd that you would find fault with the very TOOL you admire and work so hard to manage.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@52), are you still so thick?

    The material, quotes, etc., can be found in the references cited.

    No, I have already demonstrated that this is not so. At the very least, the quote you offered (@16) is a piecemeal quote that should have ellipses in it, but doesn’t. But I can’t even find most of it in Luther’s explanation of the Magnificat.

    Again, I challenge you to actually read what Luther wrote, not what some hack took out of context. It’s clear that you’ve only read the hack’s version.

    But, just so I am clear, I can find a line similar to the one in your quote that says “Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God” at the link above. What I cannot find is a quote similar to these sentences, which your source claims are also in Luther’s explanation:

    One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace.Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.

    Show me where, in Luther’s explanation, he says that. Go on, I’ll wait. Show me your research, O scholarly one.

    Or did you not know that, just because you find something on the Internet, doesn’t mean it’s true? Google can find results for you, but it can’t tell you whether those results are accurate — and it certainly can’t help you understand what those results mean. This is where you and your argument fail, Grace.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@52), are you still so thick?

    The material, quotes, etc., can be found in the references cited.

    No, I have already demonstrated that this is not so. At the very least, the quote you offered (@16) is a piecemeal quote that should have ellipses in it, but doesn’t. But I can’t even find most of it in Luther’s explanation of the Magnificat.

    Again, I challenge you to actually read what Luther wrote, not what some hack took out of context. It’s clear that you’ve only read the hack’s version.

    But, just so I am clear, I can find a line similar to the one in your quote that says “Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God” at the link above. What I cannot find is a quote similar to these sentences, which your source claims are also in Luther’s explanation:

    One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace.Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.

    Show me where, in Luther’s explanation, he says that. Go on, I’ll wait. Show me your research, O scholarly one.

    Or did you not know that, just because you find something on the Internet, doesn’t mean it’s true? Google can find results for you, but it can’t tell you whether those results are accurate — and it certainly can’t help you understand what those results mean. This is where you and your argument fail, Grace.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    YOU WROTE: ” Google can find results for you, but it can’t tell you whether those results are accurate — and it certainly can’t help you understand what those results mean”

    You proved yourself unable to understand the definition of Replacement Theology, something every single individual who is educated in religion understands, but you did not – therefore you resorted to GOOGLE. Still, after giving a try to find the definition didn’t ‘get it’ but instead blithered ” I had to look up “Replacement Theology”, which appears to be some label you’ve slapped on my quotes “ — that’s your research, SO…. because that’s the way you research, you believe everyone resorts to such nonsense.

    tODD, lets face it, you’re determined to believe that those who disagree with you, such as myself have only read blogs on google – I can assure you, that blogs are not a tool that anyone would rely on for accurate information, …. they are just blogs. In the same way, I don’t rely on commentaries as my main source, even though you believe the contrary, constantly stating I quote Matthew Henry all the time – which is falsse – but it suits your purpose.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    YOU WROTE: ” Google can find results for you, but it can’t tell you whether those results are accurate — and it certainly can’t help you understand what those results mean”

    You proved yourself unable to understand the definition of Replacement Theology, something every single individual who is educated in religion understands, but you did not – therefore you resorted to GOOGLE. Still, after giving a try to find the definition didn’t ‘get it’ but instead blithered ” I had to look up “Replacement Theology”, which appears to be some label you’ve slapped on my quotes “ — that’s your research, SO…. because that’s the way you research, you believe everyone resorts to such nonsense.

    tODD, lets face it, you’re determined to believe that those who disagree with you, such as myself have only read blogs on google – I can assure you, that blogs are not a tool that anyone would rely on for accurate information, …. they are just blogs. In the same way, I don’t rely on commentaries as my main source, even though you believe the contrary, constantly stating I quote Matthew Henry all the time – which is falsse – but it suits your purpose.

  • fws

    John @ 8

    I am glad to hear that your baptist seminary had you reading Ratzinger. You are right, he is a brilliant theologian , and his is way, way, way more orthodox and also closer to Lutheranism and also the Christocentric elements of Baptist theology than John Paul II ever was.

    One can read Ratzinger and wonder where the difference is between protestant and Roman Catholic theology. It is wonderful stuff. But… there IS a difference. That difference is outlined for us in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession in the Book of Concord.

    Rome makes the same mistakes that all of our Old Adams make. Rome does not distinguish Law from Gospel. This is to properly distinguish what is ALONE the Holy Gospel from ALL that is NOT the Holy Gospel.

    To understand these two categories, one needs to understand that the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms is really just and only a way to teach the distinction between Law and Gospel in a “casuistic” way. “Casuistry” is where a pastor takes Doctrine and applies it to the practical issues of everyday life.

    So what is the Two Kingdoms Doctrine and how does it show us Rome´s error and at the same time show each of us our own error so that we can repent and cling alone to the Works of Christ and not any of our own?

    Martin Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms (or two reigns) of God teaches that God is the ruler of the whole world and that he rules in two ways.

    He rules the earthly or left-hand kingdom through secular (and, though this point is often misunderstood, also churchly) government, by means of law (i.e., the sword or compulsion) and in the heavenly or righthand kingdom (his spiritual kingdom, that is, Christians insofar as they are a new creation who spontaneously and voluntarily obey) through the gospel or grace.

    The two kingdoms doctrine is simply another form of the distinctive Lutheran teaching of Law and Gospel. The official book that defines Lutheranism called the “Book of Concord” compiled in 1580 references a sermon by Martin Luther on this from 1528 preached on the 9th Sunday after trinity in Marburg, that is about the Two Kingdoms or Two Kinds of Righeousness. Cf Formula of Concord, article VI “The [Lutheran] Third Use of the Law. http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php section 9]

    In that sermon he states that the Earthly (left hand) kingdom includes everything we can see and do in our bodies. This fully and especially includes whatever is done in the church. This is taught so that it is clear that in the Heavenly (right hand ) kingdom, the only thing that is included there is alone Faith in Christ. “Christ alone” and “faith alone” are Lutheran slogans that are reflected in this way.

    The biblical basis for this doctrine, as with all Law and Gospel modalities is the distinction St Paul makes in Romans 8 between “flesh/body” versus “spirit/Spirit”. Martin Luther’s breakthrough moment was his break with the traditional scholastic understanding of this passage. The scholastics understood flesh vs spirit to be the movement from vice to virtue, from the profane/secular/civil to the sacred/churchly.

    Luther saw this contrast instead to be a movement from true Virtue, which especially included the sacred and churchly and any righeousness we can do or that is visible, to alone the invisible Righteousness of faith in Christ, which in the sermon referenced here he says is “meaningless on earth except to God and a troubled conscience. ”

    footnote: http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10 St. Louis edition of Luther’s Werke, vol XI pp1726ff 1900AD

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_two_kingdoms

    You see , Rome, along with the Reformed, along with Evangelicals , along with the Old Adam of all us Lutherans as well, confuse the two ways God makes his Fatherly Goodness and Mercy happen among men.

    It is God who makes his Fatherly Goodness and Mercy happen ALONE , by the preaching of the Works of Another that is ALONE the Gospel. This way happens “in a way that cannot be seen” http://bible.cc/luke/17-20.htm
    and it comes, fully so, “apart from [any of our own] works” http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom.%203.28

    Then it is also God who makes the SAME Fatherly Goodness and Mercy happen by extorting and driving it out of the Old Adams of ALL men, even Believers who still have the Old Adam clinging to them.

    Rome and our Old Adam cannot see that the Law is where 100% of this Fatherly Goodness and Mercy comes from in our Earthly Existence. So what does that mean “casuistically”? It means that ALL a christian can see and do in his body here on Earth is about his death. It is not even one tiny bit about Life. That Life is found alone by hiding ALL we can see and do in our bodies, our best and most sanctified Good Works, inside the Works of Another!

    So ALL we can see and do in our bodies here on earth has eternal consequences. Those consequences are ALL death. Temporal and eternal Death. There is NO life in ANYTHING , in and of itself , that we can see and do in our bodies here on earth that means.

    That really dones mean : Nothing.

    A Believer cannot find Life Eternal in anything that is his own work, not even his work assisted by the Holy Spirit. He cannot find Life in his faith, not in preaching the Law and Gospel which is our work, not in doctrine, not in sanctification not in anything that is Churchly , not even in the Right Administration of Word and Sacrament!

    This stuff is ALL romans 8 “flesh that will perish” with the earth along with all who trust in this stuff for Life Eternal.

    So where do we Believers then seek and then can be certain we have found that Eternal Life that exists Alone in hiding our own best Virtue and Good Works inside the Works of Another?

    We Believers are told to find that Fatherly Goodness and Mercy that is alone in the Works of Another “in, with and under” things that will perish with the earth! Into some specific works, done by men, that are done by the Command and Ordinance of Christ. In those works alone, which is the preaching of the Holy Gospel and the Blessed Sacraments, God has place The Promise.

    So faith hears this Promise that is that our own works can be hidden from God´s Wrath alone by the Works of Another. Faith hears this in the Preached Gospel that is alone about the Works of Christ alone. And Faith clings to this Promise exactly where God has located it: in Holy Baptism, in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar and in the Preached Word or Forgiveness in the Works of Christ. And then… right THERE where God has directed Faith to find it, Faith RECIEVES that Promised Goodness and Mercy!

    This is alone how the Kingdom of Grace comes! It comes by our works being now hidden in the Works of Another. Alone. It does not come in a way that we can see, and it does not come by anything we can do even though it does come “in , with and under” works that are done by sinful men according to Christ´s Command and Ordinance.

    Rome gets confused in thinking that faith, the administration of the Word and Sacraments, and Churchly stuff is not Law, law,law,

  • fws

    John @ 8

    I am glad to hear that your baptist seminary had you reading Ratzinger. You are right, he is a brilliant theologian , and his is way, way, way more orthodox and also closer to Lutheranism and also the Christocentric elements of Baptist theology than John Paul II ever was.

    One can read Ratzinger and wonder where the difference is between protestant and Roman Catholic theology. It is wonderful stuff. But… there IS a difference. That difference is outlined for us in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession in the Book of Concord.

    Rome makes the same mistakes that all of our Old Adams make. Rome does not distinguish Law from Gospel. This is to properly distinguish what is ALONE the Holy Gospel from ALL that is NOT the Holy Gospel.

    To understand these two categories, one needs to understand that the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms is really just and only a way to teach the distinction between Law and Gospel in a “casuistic” way. “Casuistry” is where a pastor takes Doctrine and applies it to the practical issues of everyday life.

    So what is the Two Kingdoms Doctrine and how does it show us Rome´s error and at the same time show each of us our own error so that we can repent and cling alone to the Works of Christ and not any of our own?

    Martin Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms (or two reigns) of God teaches that God is the ruler of the whole world and that he rules in two ways.

    He rules the earthly or left-hand kingdom through secular (and, though this point is often misunderstood, also churchly) government, by means of law (i.e., the sword or compulsion) and in the heavenly or righthand kingdom (his spiritual kingdom, that is, Christians insofar as they are a new creation who spontaneously and voluntarily obey) through the gospel or grace.

    The two kingdoms doctrine is simply another form of the distinctive Lutheran teaching of Law and Gospel. The official book that defines Lutheranism called the “Book of Concord” compiled in 1580 references a sermon by Martin Luther on this from 1528 preached on the 9th Sunday after trinity in Marburg, that is about the Two Kingdoms or Two Kinds of Righeousness. Cf Formula of Concord, article VI “The [Lutheran] Third Use of the Law. http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php section 9]

    In that sermon he states that the Earthly (left hand) kingdom includes everything we can see and do in our bodies. This fully and especially includes whatever is done in the church. This is taught so that it is clear that in the Heavenly (right hand ) kingdom, the only thing that is included there is alone Faith in Christ. “Christ alone” and “faith alone” are Lutheran slogans that are reflected in this way.

    The biblical basis for this doctrine, as with all Law and Gospel modalities is the distinction St Paul makes in Romans 8 between “flesh/body” versus “spirit/Spirit”. Martin Luther’s breakthrough moment was his break with the traditional scholastic understanding of this passage. The scholastics understood flesh vs spirit to be the movement from vice to virtue, from the profane/secular/civil to the sacred/churchly.

    Luther saw this contrast instead to be a movement from true Virtue, which especially included the sacred and churchly and any righeousness we can do or that is visible, to alone the invisible Righteousness of faith in Christ, which in the sermon referenced here he says is “meaningless on earth except to God and a troubled conscience. ”

    footnote: http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10 St. Louis edition of Luther’s Werke, vol XI pp1726ff 1900AD

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_two_kingdoms

    You see , Rome, along with the Reformed, along with Evangelicals , along with the Old Adam of all us Lutherans as well, confuse the two ways God makes his Fatherly Goodness and Mercy happen among men.

    It is God who makes his Fatherly Goodness and Mercy happen ALONE , by the preaching of the Works of Another that is ALONE the Gospel. This way happens “in a way that cannot be seen” http://bible.cc/luke/17-20.htm
    and it comes, fully so, “apart from [any of our own] works” http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom.%203.28

    Then it is also God who makes the SAME Fatherly Goodness and Mercy happen by extorting and driving it out of the Old Adams of ALL men, even Believers who still have the Old Adam clinging to them.

    Rome and our Old Adam cannot see that the Law is where 100% of this Fatherly Goodness and Mercy comes from in our Earthly Existence. So what does that mean “casuistically”? It means that ALL a christian can see and do in his body here on Earth is about his death. It is not even one tiny bit about Life. That Life is found alone by hiding ALL we can see and do in our bodies, our best and most sanctified Good Works, inside the Works of Another!

    So ALL we can see and do in our bodies here on earth has eternal consequences. Those consequences are ALL death. Temporal and eternal Death. There is NO life in ANYTHING , in and of itself , that we can see and do in our bodies here on earth that means.

    That really dones mean : Nothing.

    A Believer cannot find Life Eternal in anything that is his own work, not even his work assisted by the Holy Spirit. He cannot find Life in his faith, not in preaching the Law and Gospel which is our work, not in doctrine, not in sanctification not in anything that is Churchly , not even in the Right Administration of Word and Sacrament!

    This stuff is ALL romans 8 “flesh that will perish” with the earth along with all who trust in this stuff for Life Eternal.

    So where do we Believers then seek and then can be certain we have found that Eternal Life that exists Alone in hiding our own best Virtue and Good Works inside the Works of Another?

    We Believers are told to find that Fatherly Goodness and Mercy that is alone in the Works of Another “in, with and under” things that will perish with the earth! Into some specific works, done by men, that are done by the Command and Ordinance of Christ. In those works alone, which is the preaching of the Holy Gospel and the Blessed Sacraments, God has place The Promise.

    So faith hears this Promise that is that our own works can be hidden from God´s Wrath alone by the Works of Another. Faith hears this in the Preached Gospel that is alone about the Works of Christ alone. And Faith clings to this Promise exactly where God has located it: in Holy Baptism, in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar and in the Preached Word or Forgiveness in the Works of Christ. And then… right THERE where God has directed Faith to find it, Faith RECIEVES that Promised Goodness and Mercy!

    This is alone how the Kingdom of Grace comes! It comes by our works being now hidden in the Works of Another. Alone. It does not come in a way that we can see, and it does not come by anything we can do even though it does come “in , with and under” works that are done by sinful men according to Christ´s Command and Ordinance.

    Rome gets confused in thinking that faith, the administration of the Word and Sacraments, and Churchly stuff is not Law, law,law,

  • fws

    Steve Martin @ 35

    It is good to note that Luther repented of this error that Mary was without sin.

    It is also important to note that we are Lutheran and not Luther-an. What identifies us as Lutheran to each other is that we both have made the Lutheran Confessions our own personal testimony as to what the Holy Scriptures say to us about Christ and the Law of God.

  • fws

    Steve Martin @ 35

    It is good to note that Luther repented of this error that Mary was without sin.

    It is also important to note that we are Lutheran and not Luther-an. What identifies us as Lutheran to each other is that we both have made the Lutheran Confessions our own personal testimony as to what the Holy Scriptures say to us about Christ and the Law of God.

  • fws

    Grace @ 54

    I too had never heard of “replacement theology” by that term.
    This is the teaching that the Church of Christ is now Israel and has “replaced israel” as the recipient of all the promises God made to Israel.

    Grace this is pretty much what I and all Lutherans believe. But it needs to be qualified significantly: There was the Earthly Kingdom of Israel where God ruled with Laws and Ceremonies. This Kingdom included ALL who were circumcized. So this means that it included hipocrites such as the Pharisees and Saducees, and then it also included those who were members of the heavenly Israel that consisted and STILL consists, dear Grace, of ALL who trust in the Works of the Messiah rather than in any of their own Good Works.

    So there was always Two Israels! There was that external Israel ruled by God´s Laws and Ceremonies that contained true believers and hypocrites. Then there was another Israel that at one time consisted of those invisible 7,000 who still had not bent the knee to Baal but who even the prophet of God could not see! It was to THIS Israel alone, who had invisible faith, that the Promises applied to!

    Now note that even though that visible Israel was NOT the Israel to whom God gave the Promises. The Promises were made alone to those with faith in the Messiah. In Christ! And those believers could ONLY be found where? Within the confines of that VISIBLE Old Testament Church we know as the historical Israel, which included both hypocrites AND the true believers in Christ who ALONE were owners of the Promise made to Israel.

    This is still the situation today.

    God, in Christ alone, has established his Holy Catholic (Universal )Church. This IS the new visible Israel. This new Israel is now “catholic”! This means that it is not confined by geographic, political or ethnic boundaries as was Israel, but rather , as pentecost demostrated, it is scattered everywhere! It consists of all the baptized rather than all the circumcized now, and it also consists of true believers and also hypocrites! And it is identified and boundaried by rites and ceremonies peculiar to it. Baptism is the rite of entrance into that new Israel!

    But note: The Promise of Christ is only owned by the true believers who are invisibly to be found ONLY “in, with and under” that Holy Catholic Church . This group, that is found ONLY within the confines of that VISIBLE Holy Catholic Church is called the Communion of Saints. It consists of all who have invisible faith in Christ. And to those are still given all the Promises of that other invisible Communion of Saints called Israel in the Old Testament.

    Got it Grace?

  • fws

    Grace @ 54

    I too had never heard of “replacement theology” by that term.
    This is the teaching that the Church of Christ is now Israel and has “replaced israel” as the recipient of all the promises God made to Israel.

    Grace this is pretty much what I and all Lutherans believe. But it needs to be qualified significantly: There was the Earthly Kingdom of Israel where God ruled with Laws and Ceremonies. This Kingdom included ALL who were circumcized. So this means that it included hipocrites such as the Pharisees and Saducees, and then it also included those who were members of the heavenly Israel that consisted and STILL consists, dear Grace, of ALL who trust in the Works of the Messiah rather than in any of their own Good Works.

    So there was always Two Israels! There was that external Israel ruled by God´s Laws and Ceremonies that contained true believers and hypocrites. Then there was another Israel that at one time consisted of those invisible 7,000 who still had not bent the knee to Baal but who even the prophet of God could not see! It was to THIS Israel alone, who had invisible faith, that the Promises applied to!

    Now note that even though that visible Israel was NOT the Israel to whom God gave the Promises. The Promises were made alone to those with faith in the Messiah. In Christ! And those believers could ONLY be found where? Within the confines of that VISIBLE Old Testament Church we know as the historical Israel, which included both hypocrites AND the true believers in Christ who ALONE were owners of the Promise made to Israel.

    This is still the situation today.

    God, in Christ alone, has established his Holy Catholic (Universal )Church. This IS the new visible Israel. This new Israel is now “catholic”! This means that it is not confined by geographic, political or ethnic boundaries as was Israel, but rather , as pentecost demostrated, it is scattered everywhere! It consists of all the baptized rather than all the circumcized now, and it also consists of true believers and also hypocrites! And it is identified and boundaried by rites and ceremonies peculiar to it. Baptism is the rite of entrance into that new Israel!

    But note: The Promise of Christ is only owned by the true believers who are invisibly to be found ONLY “in, with and under” that Holy Catholic Church . This group, that is found ONLY within the confines of that VISIBLE Holy Catholic Church is called the Communion of Saints. It consists of all who have invisible faith in Christ. And to those are still given all the Promises of that other invisible Communion of Saints called Israel in the Old Testament.

    Got it Grace?

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #39,

    “You’re copying-and-pasting sentences you neither understand nor have even read in context. And you refuse to tell us where you’re getting these (apparently partially fabricated) quotes from — perhaps because it would embarrass both of us.”

    We already had this conversation here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2010/10/20/crystal-cathedral-goes-bankrupt/

    As I recall, Grace is pulling these quotes from a shameless Roman Catholic article in which the author tries to claim luther as a proponent of Marian theology. It’s rather laughable, as I remember, but it explains why Grace has no grasp beyond the pull quotes. It is ironic that she joins forces with a papist in the goal of slandering luther. Does this reliance on papistic resources mean that Grace, also, is now “coming home” to the Roman Catholic church?

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #39,

    “You’re copying-and-pasting sentences you neither understand nor have even read in context. And you refuse to tell us where you’re getting these (apparently partially fabricated) quotes from — perhaps because it would embarrass both of us.”

    We already had this conversation here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2010/10/20/crystal-cathedral-goes-bankrupt/

    As I recall, Grace is pulling these quotes from a shameless Roman Catholic article in which the author tries to claim luther as a proponent of Marian theology. It’s rather laughable, as I remember, but it explains why Grace has no grasp beyond the pull quotes. It is ironic that she joins forces with a papist in the goal of slandering luther. Does this reliance on papistic resources mean that Grace, also, is now “coming home” to the Roman Catholic church?

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave Armstrong was the author, by the way, since the link from the previous conversation seems to be dead.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave Armstrong was the author, by the way, since the link from the previous conversation seems to be dead.

  • Tom Hering

    I think it ought to be clear to us, by now, that every time we try to discuss anything involving Martin Luther, Grace is going to derail the discussion with false accusations (“the TRUTH!!!“) against Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism. (Accusations that have to be answered.) Heck, it isn’t even a matter of Grace striking back in defense of Evangelicals and non-denominational churches anymore. Now she’s taking the opportunity to accuse Martin Luther when the Lutherans here are critical of – the Pope!

    Truly bizarre.

  • Tom Hering

    I think it ought to be clear to us, by now, that every time we try to discuss anything involving Martin Luther, Grace is going to derail the discussion with false accusations (“the TRUTH!!!“) against Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism. (Accusations that have to be answered.) Heck, it isn’t even a matter of Grace striking back in defense of Evangelicals and non-denominational churches anymore. Now she’s taking the opportunity to accuse Martin Luther when the Lutherans here are critical of – the Pope!

    Truly bizarre.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@54), this is getting pathetic.

    You proved yourself unable to understand the definition of Replacement Theology…

    No, that’s not what I said — even your own quoting of me shows that I merely had to “look it up”, not having heard the phrase before.

    …something every single individual who is educated in religion understands

    Your inability to distinguish between yourself and everyone else is verging on the neurotic.

    Not that any of this is the point. And you know it. You’re resorting to harping on this “Replacement Theology” nonsense because you have no response to, no justification for, your attacks on Luther. It’s shoddy work you’ve done, and you know it, or else you’d at least attempt to defend it, rather than pointing hysterically at completely irrelevant topics in an attempt to distract.

    And, as you so often do, you resort to boasting about your own research skills, while yet failing to give an example of them. Every single quote you’ve offered about Luther here can be found on any number of websites whose biases are clear[1][2][3] — two of which are pro-Catholic, and the other of which is cleverly titled “Martin Loser”, among others.

    If you found these quotes from your scholarly research into Luther, then go ahead and tell me where you found them. Of course, you’ll have to explain why your quotes don’t actually seem to match up with the original texts — while they do, ever-so-curiously, line up word-for-word with the quotes found on those hack pages. Because it certainly looks for all the world like you’re relying on extremely shoddy sources for your Luther attacks. But please, go ahead, prove me wrong. Point me to the original sources. I’ll wait.

    … constantly stating I quote Matthew Henry all the time – which is falsse [sic]

    Actually, it’s false to say that I said you quote him “all the time”. But, fine, here’s a quick scan of your Matthew Henry references on this blog: [4][5][6][7][8][9] (at least, those where you gave him attribution — I found at least one time[10] where you didn’t even do that).

    Not exactly the actions of a lady who claims to hold “ONLY” to the Bible, are they?

    Of course, your refusal to acknowledge the errors in your Luther “quotes” — both as to what they literally say and as to what you claim they mean — is hardly consistent with, as you said (@44), an individual who is “not interested in anything but the TRUTH”.

    [1]jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/martin_loser.htm
    [2]davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm
    [3]catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=788

    [4]geneveith.com/2010/09/28/the-rich-man-lazarus/#comment-92792
    [5]geneveith.com/2011/05/06/versions-of-cranachs-seal/#comment-115456
    [6]geneveith.com/2010/09/02/a-mormon-on-the-glenn-beck-rally/#comment-90316
    [7]geneveith.com/2010/09/10/a-new-lutheran-church-gnosticism-and-the-bible/#comment-91306
    [8]geneveith.com/2011/02/21/all-things-are-yours/#comment-107699
    [9]geneveith.com/2011/02/28/dealing-with-gay-marriage/#comment-108708
    [10]geneveith.com/2011/04/27/lutheranism-as-the-emergent-church/#comment-114524

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@54), this is getting pathetic.

    You proved yourself unable to understand the definition of Replacement Theology…

    No, that’s not what I said — even your own quoting of me shows that I merely had to “look it up”, not having heard the phrase before.

    …something every single individual who is educated in religion understands

    Your inability to distinguish between yourself and everyone else is verging on the neurotic.

    Not that any of this is the point. And you know it. You’re resorting to harping on this “Replacement Theology” nonsense because you have no response to, no justification for, your attacks on Luther. It’s shoddy work you’ve done, and you know it, or else you’d at least attempt to defend it, rather than pointing hysterically at completely irrelevant topics in an attempt to distract.

    And, as you so often do, you resort to boasting about your own research skills, while yet failing to give an example of them. Every single quote you’ve offered about Luther here can be found on any number of websites whose biases are clear[1][2][3] — two of which are pro-Catholic, and the other of which is cleverly titled “Martin Loser”, among others.

    If you found these quotes from your scholarly research into Luther, then go ahead and tell me where you found them. Of course, you’ll have to explain why your quotes don’t actually seem to match up with the original texts — while they do, ever-so-curiously, line up word-for-word with the quotes found on those hack pages. Because it certainly looks for all the world like you’re relying on extremely shoddy sources for your Luther attacks. But please, go ahead, prove me wrong. Point me to the original sources. I’ll wait.

    … constantly stating I quote Matthew Henry all the time – which is falsse [sic]

    Actually, it’s false to say that I said you quote him “all the time”. But, fine, here’s a quick scan of your Matthew Henry references on this blog: [4][5][6][7][8][9] (at least, those where you gave him attribution — I found at least one time[10] where you didn’t even do that).

    Not exactly the actions of a lady who claims to hold “ONLY” to the Bible, are they?

    Of course, your refusal to acknowledge the errors in your Luther “quotes” — both as to what they literally say and as to what you claim they mean — is hardly consistent with, as you said (@44), an individual who is “not interested in anything but the TRUTH”.

    [1]jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/martin_loser.htm
    [2]davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm
    [3]catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=788

    [4]geneveith.com/2010/09/28/the-rich-man-lazarus/#comment-92792
    [5]geneveith.com/2011/05/06/versions-of-cranachs-seal/#comment-115456
    [6]geneveith.com/2010/09/02/a-mormon-on-the-glenn-beck-rally/#comment-90316
    [7]geneveith.com/2010/09/10/a-new-lutheran-church-gnosticism-and-the-bible/#comment-91306
    [8]geneveith.com/2011/02/21/all-things-are-yours/#comment-107699
    [9]geneveith.com/2011/02/28/dealing-with-gay-marriage/#comment-108708
    [10]geneveith.com/2011/04/27/lutheranism-as-the-emergent-church/#comment-114524

  • Craig

    The Pope on Luther or the Grace and tODD pissing match?

  • Craig

    The Pope on Luther or the Grace and tODD pissing match?

  • Craig

    Grace, besides yourself, who is your favorite bible teacher?

  • Craig

    Grace, besides yourself, who is your favorite bible teacher?

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace & tODD… Knock it off. All other’s glowing to near flame… Cool it!

    I don’t come here every day but today was my mistake.
    I don’t know or care what “Replacement Theology” is nor do I like being sent to Luther’s Works WA… in German… as a snarky jab to another poster.

    The Bishop of Rome is a smart old man who couldn’t change his erroneous theology even if visited by Christ himself. I wonder if he would “Friend” Mary on FB before JC?

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace & tODD… Knock it off. All other’s glowing to near flame… Cool it!

    I don’t come here every day but today was my mistake.
    I don’t know or care what “Replacement Theology” is nor do I like being sent to Luther’s Works WA… in German… as a snarky jab to another poster.

    The Bishop of Rome is a smart old man who couldn’t change his erroneous theology even if visited by Christ himself. I wonder if he would “Friend” Mary on FB before JC?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mr. Moeller (@64), it’s not clear why you felt compelled to read the entirety of a discussion in which you did not take part … and then complain about it. I’m not saying my behavior or motivations are perfect (of course they’re not), but I also happen to think that Grace’s slander deserves a response. If you don’t want to read my discussion with her, then, well, don’t.

    This is a thread that’s over a day old, and, as such things happen, has wandered on to various other topics (this often happens when Grace finds her way on to this blog) and winnowed down to a handful of people still interested in sustaining the conversation.

    If Grace is not interested in replying to my comments, then I almost certainly will have nothing more to say. But if she does — and if I reply — what is that to you? Again, why would you read so much of a conversation that upset you so?

    nor do I like being sent to Luther’s Works WA… in German

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Weimar edition (WA) of Luther’s works is, necessarily in German (well, German and Latin). If I could have found an online English translation to link to, I certainly would have. But I couldn’t, and the quote I found (@42) specifically cited “(WA 49, 173)”. Besides, Grace is a self-admitted Luther scholar, so I don’t imagine her understanding is at all hindered by source texts in German and Latin.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mr. Moeller (@64), it’s not clear why you felt compelled to read the entirety of a discussion in which you did not take part … and then complain about it. I’m not saying my behavior or motivations are perfect (of course they’re not), but I also happen to think that Grace’s slander deserves a response. If you don’t want to read my discussion with her, then, well, don’t.

    This is a thread that’s over a day old, and, as such things happen, has wandered on to various other topics (this often happens when Grace finds her way on to this blog) and winnowed down to a handful of people still interested in sustaining the conversation.

    If Grace is not interested in replying to my comments, then I almost certainly will have nothing more to say. But if she does — and if I reply — what is that to you? Again, why would you read so much of a conversation that upset you so?

    nor do I like being sent to Luther’s Works WA… in German

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Weimar edition (WA) of Luther’s works is, necessarily in German (well, German and Latin). If I could have found an online English translation to link to, I certainly would have. But I couldn’t, and the quote I found (@42) specifically cited “(WA 49, 173)”. Besides, Grace is a self-admitted Luther scholar, so I don’t imagine her understanding is at all hindered by source texts in German and Latin.

  • Tom Moeller

    You state your position very well in the first line “…it is not entirely clear why…” That is the point. You and Grace would be more considerate of other commenters if y’all would claw and scratch (that is what it looks like from the bleachers) else where. Experts on comment threads are a dime a dozen. Not a big deal.

    I wonder how many interested commenters with good input were put off by y’alls bickering? Time and place. Time and place.

    Upset? Hardly. You and Grace, on this thread, aren’t worth the emotional investment. Time and place.

    Don’t concern yourself with my motives. You rightly state you don’t know what they are. I will keep it that way and let you move on.

    My comment isn’t even worth responding to. Try it…

  • Tom Moeller

    You state your position very well in the first line “…it is not entirely clear why…” That is the point. You and Grace would be more considerate of other commenters if y’all would claw and scratch (that is what it looks like from the bleachers) else where. Experts on comment threads are a dime a dozen. Not a big deal.

    I wonder how many interested commenters with good input were put off by y’alls bickering? Time and place. Time and place.

    Upset? Hardly. You and Grace, on this thread, aren’t worth the emotional investment. Time and place.

    Don’t concern yourself with my motives. You rightly state you don’t know what they are. I will keep it that way and let you move on.

    My comment isn’t even worth responding to. Try it…

  • Tom Hering

    Tom Moeller @ 66, you admit you don’t come here every day. Do you think it’s possible you don’t know the history behind this particular argument with Grace? How we’ve listened to Grace slander Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism for a year now? How we’ve tried both patience and reason in dealing with her – to no avail? How not just Todd, but a number of the regular commenters here have found it necessary to respond to Grace in a strong manner? How even Dr. Veith has had to warn her?

    I find your attempt to jump in out of nowhere and referee this argument just a little unfair to both Todd and those of us “warming to a glow.”

  • Tom Hering

    Tom Moeller @ 66, you admit you don’t come here every day. Do you think it’s possible you don’t know the history behind this particular argument with Grace? How we’ve listened to Grace slander Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism for a year now? How we’ve tried both patience and reason in dealing with her – to no avail? How not just Todd, but a number of the regular commenters here have found it necessary to respond to Grace in a strong manner? How even Dr. Veith has had to warn her?

    I find your attempt to jump in out of nowhere and referee this argument just a little unfair to both Todd and those of us “warming to a glow.”

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @tODD
    I know I am posting late on this thread. You weren’t the only one who had to look up the term replacement theology. Can’t fault somebody for not knowing a term coined by false theologians.

    Grace, here is the difference, tODD didn’t know so he looked it up. He actually did some research. You, on the other hand, have shown a remarkable inability to learn and/or do real research. So, every time you rant about him not knowing the term “replacement theology,” which btw is an inaccurate term for orthodox teaching, makes you look all the more foolish because anybody with half a brain can see tODD’s honesty and willingness to learn. Meanwhile, you constantly are reprimanded for repeatedly quoting the same out of context quotations, where anybody with the ability to copy/paste into Google can find you are only drawing off of what other people claim Luther says. So who are we to trust, someone honest enough to admit they don’t know and are willing to learn? Or somebody who quotes what others say but refuses to go to the source?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @tODD
    I know I am posting late on this thread. You weren’t the only one who had to look up the term replacement theology. Can’t fault somebody for not knowing a term coined by false theologians.

    Grace, here is the difference, tODD didn’t know so he looked it up. He actually did some research. You, on the other hand, have shown a remarkable inability to learn and/or do real research. So, every time you rant about him not knowing the term “replacement theology,” which btw is an inaccurate term for orthodox teaching, makes you look all the more foolish because anybody with half a brain can see tODD’s honesty and willingness to learn. Meanwhile, you constantly are reprimanded for repeatedly quoting the same out of context quotations, where anybody with the ability to copy/paste into Google can find you are only drawing off of what other people claim Luther says. So who are we to trust, someone honest enough to admit they don’t know and are willing to learn? Or somebody who quotes what others say but refuses to go to the source?

  • Tom Moeller

    Tom @ 67 and tODD, et. al(fonse):

    You are absolutely correct. It is not fair my jumping in and appear to “referee” the back and forth around Grace.
    A bit to chew on… Do you care what this kind of exchange looks like to an infrequent reader?

    At what point do people stop being baited and respond to conduct that injures discussion.

    I still learn alot here.
    I must admit my misplaced sense of fairness in wishing for a more focused discussion caused me to include folk who are in no way eligible for the sin bin as is Grace for multiple infringements about the ruck.

    My apologies… I repent.

    the following is just useless fluff:

    I looked up replacement theology. My initial reaction… Yeah. So?
    It isn’t in the Christain Cyclopedia (Lutheran) .
    (replacement theology and $0.25 wont get you a cup of coffee. just some soggy fodder for future pathetic “demi-gotchas”… Graaaace?)

  • Tom Moeller

    Tom @ 67 and tODD, et. al(fonse):

    You are absolutely correct. It is not fair my jumping in and appear to “referee” the back and forth around Grace.
    A bit to chew on… Do you care what this kind of exchange looks like to an infrequent reader?

    At what point do people stop being baited and respond to conduct that injures discussion.

    I still learn alot here.
    I must admit my misplaced sense of fairness in wishing for a more focused discussion caused me to include folk who are in no way eligible for the sin bin as is Grace for multiple infringements about the ruck.

    My apologies… I repent.

    the following is just useless fluff:

    I looked up replacement theology. My initial reaction… Yeah. So?
    It isn’t in the Christain Cyclopedia (Lutheran) .
    (replacement theology and $0.25 wont get you a cup of coffee. just some soggy fodder for future pathetic “demi-gotchas”… Graaaace?)

  • Craig

    When Hal Lindsey said that he believes in replacement theology his audience (dispensationalists) were stunned….then he clarified and said “Yes, Israel replaces the Church after the rapture.”

  • Craig

    When Hal Lindsey said that he believes in replacement theology his audience (dispensationalists) were stunned….then he clarified and said “Yes, Israel replaces the Church after the rapture.”

  • Tom Hering

    Tom Moeller @ 69, yes, I do care what this sort of exchange looks like to an infrequent reader of this blog. I’m aware it must look bad. But what are we to do? The slanders Grace insists on repeating have to be answered. (Note that they’re not against any one of us personally, so it’s not ourselves we’re defending.) Now, I wish I was the sort of person who could always answer Grace with patience and kindness. Day after day, week after week, month after month. But I’m not. I’m guessing no one else here is, either. (Such a person has yet to reveal himself or herself.) So, I can only hope someone will come along and show us how it’s done. Until then …

  • Tom Hering

    Tom Moeller @ 69, yes, I do care what this sort of exchange looks like to an infrequent reader of this blog. I’m aware it must look bad. But what are we to do? The slanders Grace insists on repeating have to be answered. (Note that they’re not against any one of us personally, so it’s not ourselves we’re defending.) Now, I wish I was the sort of person who could always answer Grace with patience and kindness. Day after day, week after week, month after month. But I’m not. I’m guessing no one else here is, either. (Such a person has yet to reveal himself or herself.) So, I can only hope someone will come along and show us how it’s done. Until then …

  • Grace

    Craig @ 63

    Grace, besides yourself, who is your favorite bible teacher?

    Why the LORD Jesus Christ of course. Who else could trump God the Son’s Gospel?

  • Grace

    Craig @ 63

    Grace, besides yourself, who is your favorite bible teacher?

    Why the LORD Jesus Christ of course. Who else could trump God the Son’s Gospel?

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, could you describe just how Our Lord Himself teaches you the Bible? That’s a fascinating claim, and I’m interested in hearing the details. Seriously. Thanks.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, could you describe just how Our Lord Himself teaches you the Bible? That’s a fascinating claim, and I’m interested in hearing the details. Seriously. Thanks.

  • Tom Hering

    I should add that the reason I’m fascinated by your claim, Grace, is you seem to be saying your understanding of the Bible is entirely the result of you sitting (in some way) at the feet of Our Lord Jesus Christ. No man (Christian), no book written by a man (Christian), and no oral teaching or preaching of a man (Christian), had anything to do with what you’ve learned. Is that right?

  • Tom Hering

    I should add that the reason I’m fascinated by your claim, Grace, is you seem to be saying your understanding of the Bible is entirely the result of you sitting (in some way) at the feet of Our Lord Jesus Christ. No man (Christian), no book written by a man (Christian), and no oral teaching or preaching of a man (Christian), had anything to do with what you’ve learned. Is that right?

  • Drew Nelson

    It has been quite the ride reading through all of these posts. I don’t actually remember the question I was supposed to respond to. I don’t feel the need to argue either. I also don’t care to share any credentials. I can say that it has been a bit entertaining though. Thanks everyone. I hope to be on here more and read what crazy thing Grace will be doing next. Maybe I will even get on here soon enough to be a part of it!

  • Drew Nelson

    It has been quite the ride reading through all of these posts. I don’t actually remember the question I was supposed to respond to. I don’t feel the need to argue either. I also don’t care to share any credentials. I can say that it has been a bit entertaining though. Thanks everyone. I hope to be on here more and read what crazy thing Grace will be doing next. Maybe I will even get on here soon enough to be a part of it!

  • Drew Nelson

    Oh! And “replacement theology”?

    Really…?

  • Drew Nelson

    Oh! And “replacement theology”?

    Really…?

  • Tom Moeller

    Tom Hering @ 71 : It looks as though you do have a style to deal with the Grace.
    1. Assertion made in possible error…
    2. You inquire as to the source of or substantiation of the assertion.
    3. Do not waiver in extracting the source of the other person’s “error.”

    (The ever popular “I don’t find that to be substantially true…Have you ever considered … aspect of …” is a good way to maintain pressure without committing an “own goal.”

    This style, carried on in a determined fashion, is never rude or unkind of itself.
    A person who wilts under the necessity of defending will be found out soon enough. This is my specialty. Alas I don’t have enough ready knowledge or time to be really effective. I usually use this technique on commies and progressive nutjobs.
    When I understand Chemnitz I will challenge the Romish.

    I have gone from annoyed to entertained and eddycated…. Thanks y’all.

    tODD… I am sorry for my uncalled for butinsky.

  • Tom Moeller

    Tom Hering @ 71 : It looks as though you do have a style to deal with the Grace.
    1. Assertion made in possible error…
    2. You inquire as to the source of or substantiation of the assertion.
    3. Do not waiver in extracting the source of the other person’s “error.”

    (The ever popular “I don’t find that to be substantially true…Have you ever considered … aspect of …” is a good way to maintain pressure without committing an “own goal.”

    This style, carried on in a determined fashion, is never rude or unkind of itself.
    A person who wilts under the necessity of defending will be found out soon enough. This is my specialty. Alas I don’t have enough ready knowledge or time to be really effective. I usually use this technique on commies and progressive nutjobs.
    When I understand Chemnitz I will challenge the Romish.

    I have gone from annoyed to entertained and eddycated…. Thanks y’all.

    tODD… I am sorry for my uncalled for butinsky.

  • Tom Moeller

    Oh… By the way… Jesus is my Bible study pal too! He comes into my heart and tells me what to know when I read a verse of passage.

    I am trying to find common ground like B-16 suggests is so important. “…the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided…” (B-16)

    Only what divided. Must be confusing the desired reforms of Luther with the radicals.
    Or, maybe it was just a papal shot.

  • Tom Moeller

    Oh… By the way… Jesus is my Bible study pal too! He comes into my heart and tells me what to know when I read a verse of passage.

    I am trying to find common ground like B-16 suggests is so important. “…the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided…” (B-16)

    Only what divided. Must be confusing the desired reforms of Luther with the radicals.
    Or, maybe it was just a papal shot.

  • Craig

    Grace @72
    “Why the LORD Jesus Christ of course. Who else could trump God the Son’s Gospel?”
    That is just not fair. You get the direct teaching right from the LORD and I have to settle with some man in a robe at an Altar.
    Tell me why I don’t get to have this direct revelation like you do. Is it that I am more sinful than you? Or am I just not spiritual enough? I want the direct line like you have I can be as confident and bold as you are. Maybe you are the Jacob and I’m the Esau?
    Grace, since you get the teaching straight from the LORD you are now my favorite bible teacher!

    When will tODD , Tom and the rest of these Lutherans wake up?

  • Craig

    Grace @72
    “Why the LORD Jesus Christ of course. Who else could trump God the Son’s Gospel?”
    That is just not fair. You get the direct teaching right from the LORD and I have to settle with some man in a robe at an Altar.
    Tell me why I don’t get to have this direct revelation like you do. Is it that I am more sinful than you? Or am I just not spiritual enough? I want the direct line like you have I can be as confident and bold as you are. Maybe you are the Jacob and I’m the Esau?
    Grace, since you get the teaching straight from the LORD you are now my favorite bible teacher!

    When will tODD , Tom and the rest of these Lutherans wake up?

  • Tom Hering

    “I usually use this technique on commies and progressive nutjobs.” – Tom Moeller @ 77.

    Looks like I’m in for it, then. On other threads. :-)

    “Oh… By the way… Jesus is my Bible study pal too! He comes into my heart and tells me what to know when I read a verse of passage.”

    I believe the Holy Spirit teaches me as I read or listen. I can even remember the hour when God gave me the gift of faith, and how the Bible was a closed a book to me one minute, and wide open the next. So I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of being taught by God. What puzzles me is that God – according to Grace (if I understand her correctly) – never used a Christian man, or a Christian man’s writings, to teach her. How did God teach her in an exclusively one-on-one way? What is that like? I’m dying to know, because in my own case, God has used godly men to correct my understanding of His Word – again and again and again.

  • Tom Hering

    “I usually use this technique on commies and progressive nutjobs.” – Tom Moeller @ 77.

    Looks like I’m in for it, then. On other threads. :-)

    “Oh… By the way… Jesus is my Bible study pal too! He comes into my heart and tells me what to know when I read a verse of passage.”

    I believe the Holy Spirit teaches me as I read or listen. I can even remember the hour when God gave me the gift of faith, and how the Bible was a closed a book to me one minute, and wide open the next. So I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of being taught by God. What puzzles me is that God – according to Grace (if I understand her correctly) – never used a Christian man, or a Christian man’s writings, to teach her. How did God teach her in an exclusively one-on-one way? What is that like? I’m dying to know, because in my own case, God has used godly men to correct my understanding of His Word – again and again and again.

  • Tom Moeller

    Tom, you may have a looser definition of commie/progressive than I do. No worries.

    Take the “Study Pal” and apply sarc. God reveals through His Word and my nose is in His Word and the writings of other trusted sources of commentary on His Word. To what you say…Ditto. I just say it differently.

    “When will tODD , Tom and the rest of these Lutherans wake up?”
    Grace: Which Tom? And wake up from what to what?

  • Tom Moeller

    Tom, you may have a looser definition of commie/progressive than I do. No worries.

    Take the “Study Pal” and apply sarc. God reveals through His Word and my nose is in His Word and the writings of other trusted sources of commentary on His Word. To what you say…Ditto. I just say it differently.

    “When will tODD , Tom and the rest of these Lutherans wake up?”
    Grace: Which Tom? And wake up from what to what?

  • Tom Moeller

    Oh. My bad. the wake up call was from Craig… Sorry for the uninvited attention Grace.

    So, Craig… I know you get your stuff from altar and robed guys, but how do we wake up to what for what and who reveals that what to whom? :-)

    s

  • Tom Moeller

    Oh. My bad. the wake up call was from Craig… Sorry for the uninvited attention Grace.

    So, Craig… I know you get your stuff from altar and robed guys, but how do we wake up to what for what and who reveals that what to whom? :-)

    s

  • Craig

    Tom @82
    The wake up is to the FACT that Grace gets first hand revelation and we only get crumbs from the table. We Lutherans only get means i.e. TLS, Baptism, C&A, the Preached Word….all material, earthly, mediated connections to Jesus. But Grace needs none of that she gets the unmediated direct messages from God himself.
    Tom I’m being a wise @$$

  • Craig

    Tom @82
    The wake up is to the FACT that Grace gets first hand revelation and we only get crumbs from the table. We Lutherans only get means i.e. TLS, Baptism, C&A, the Preached Word….all material, earthly, mediated connections to Jesus. But Grace needs none of that she gets the unmediated direct messages from God himself.
    Tom I’m being a wise @$$

  • Grace

    My father being a pastor certainly knew the Bible, and so did my mother, they gave me much understanding of God’s Word. After becoming an adult, moving from home, I have listened to, sat under a number of pastors – The most important study is the Bible. The LORD teaches us through the study of HIS Word, the HOLY Spirit guides us. HIS Word is a lamp unto our feet as the Bible states.

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    2 Timothy 2:15

    Point being, I would rather go straight to the Word of God, asking the LORD to help me, knowing the HOLY Spirit is within me, depending upon HIM. No one does it better than the LORD. You can read hundreds of books, but you will never glean from them the pureness of God’s Word, unless you study it, for yourself!

    11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the spirit of God.

    12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world. but the spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

    13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:11-13

    Below is very explicit as to God dwelling in us and we in Him, that again is a “personal relationship” with our LORD, HIS Spirit dwelling within us.

    13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

    14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

    15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 1 John 4

    Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. John 14:23

  • Grace

    My father being a pastor certainly knew the Bible, and so did my mother, they gave me much understanding of God’s Word. After becoming an adult, moving from home, I have listened to, sat under a number of pastors – The most important study is the Bible. The LORD teaches us through the study of HIS Word, the HOLY Spirit guides us. HIS Word is a lamp unto our feet as the Bible states.

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    2 Timothy 2:15

    Point being, I would rather go straight to the Word of God, asking the LORD to help me, knowing the HOLY Spirit is within me, depending upon HIM. No one does it better than the LORD. You can read hundreds of books, but you will never glean from them the pureness of God’s Word, unless you study it, for yourself!

    11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the spirit of God.

    12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world. but the spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

    13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:11-13

    Below is very explicit as to God dwelling in us and we in Him, that again is a “personal relationship” with our LORD, HIS Spirit dwelling within us.

    13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

    14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

    15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 1 John 4

    Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. John 14:23

  • Tom Moeller

    Craig @ 83: “We Lutherans only get means i.e. TLS, Baptism, C&A, the Preached Word….all material, earthly, mediated connections to Jesus.”

    Oh nooooooooes! That’s all? Say it ain’t so Joe (Craig)!

    Grace @ 82: “…I would rather go straight to the Word of God, asking the LORD to help me, knowing the HOLY Spirit is within me, depending upon HIM. No one does it better than the LORD.”

    And if the Lord is saying “My servant Martin Luther has written and expresses My Word well for your correct understanding.” How would you apprehend that guidance?

  • Tom Moeller

    Craig @ 83: “We Lutherans only get means i.e. TLS, Baptism, C&A, the Preached Word….all material, earthly, mediated connections to Jesus.”

    Oh nooooooooes! That’s all? Say it ain’t so Joe (Craig)!

    Grace @ 82: “…I would rather go straight to the Word of God, asking the LORD to help me, knowing the HOLY Spirit is within me, depending upon HIM. No one does it better than the LORD.”

    And if the Lord is saying “My servant Martin Luther has written and expresses My Word well for your correct understanding.” How would you apprehend that guidance?

  • Tom Hering

    “You can read hundreds of books …”

    Grace, has the possibility ever crossed your mind that the Christian authors of those books knew Christ as well as you do, and wrote their books to share what they learned from His Word? Or that, having been called by Christ to teach, their godly knowledge might exceed yours? I mean, you’ve never written anything here that would lead me to believe your knowledge of Scripture exceeds that of Martin Luther. Either quantitatively or qualitatively.

    “… unless you study it, for yourself!”

    Presuming we don’t study God’s Word for ourselves isn’t going to win you any friends here.

    “… a ‘personal relationship’ with our LORD …”

    He lives in us as surely as He lives in you. I can’t think of a more personal relationship than that. But go ahead and tell me the ways your relationship with Christ is more personal than a Lutheran’s. I’m eager to learn.

  • Tom Hering

    “You can read hundreds of books …”

    Grace, has the possibility ever crossed your mind that the Christian authors of those books knew Christ as well as you do, and wrote their books to share what they learned from His Word? Or that, having been called by Christ to teach, their godly knowledge might exceed yours? I mean, you’ve never written anything here that would lead me to believe your knowledge of Scripture exceeds that of Martin Luther. Either quantitatively or qualitatively.

    “… unless you study it, for yourself!”

    Presuming we don’t study God’s Word for ourselves isn’t going to win you any friends here.

    “… a ‘personal relationship’ with our LORD …”

    He lives in us as surely as He lives in you. I can’t think of a more personal relationship than that. But go ahead and tell me the ways your relationship with Christ is more personal than a Lutheran’s. I’m eager to learn.

  • Tom Moeller

    Ever suppose some folk can’t distinguish “knowledge of scripture” from “knowledge about scripture?”
    Grace @ 84:
    “My father being a pastor certainly knew the Bible, and so did my mother, they gave me much understanding of God’s Word.”
    Take One:
    My Pa was an engineer. I just know enough engineer stuff to be in the way.
    Knowledge ain’t hereditary. The capacity to retain knowledge may be in the genes. That is still a long way from being de facto correct in a debate.
    Take Two:
    Yer Ma and Pa weren’t Jesus. Their teaching was flawed and to be in error until show’d by the Holy Spirit to be other wise.
    Take Three:
    You learned well from trusted sources that God provided you and they were many and various. God Bless Mom and Dad and all the Saint before!

    Jes spitballin’ here.

  • Tom Moeller

    Ever suppose some folk can’t distinguish “knowledge of scripture” from “knowledge about scripture?”
    Grace @ 84:
    “My father being a pastor certainly knew the Bible, and so did my mother, they gave me much understanding of God’s Word.”
    Take One:
    My Pa was an engineer. I just know enough engineer stuff to be in the way.
    Knowledge ain’t hereditary. The capacity to retain knowledge may be in the genes. That is still a long way from being de facto correct in a debate.
    Take Two:
    Yer Ma and Pa weren’t Jesus. Their teaching was flawed and to be in error until show’d by the Holy Spirit to be other wise.
    Take Three:
    You learned well from trusted sources that God provided you and they were many and various. God Bless Mom and Dad and all the Saint before!

    Jes spitballin’ here.

  • Tom Hering

    There never has been a time, Grace, when it was just you and your Bible. Unless you and your Bible have been in solitary confinement together from the day you were born. Your understanding of the Bible has been influenced – sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse – by everything you’ve ever heard or read about the Bible. Just like everyone else.

  • Tom Hering

    There never has been a time, Grace, when it was just you and your Bible. Unless you and your Bible have been in solitary confinement together from the day you were born. Your understanding of the Bible has been influenced – sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse – by everything you’ve ever heard or read about the Bible. Just like everyone else.

  • Grace

    Tom @88

    There never has been a time, Grace, when it was just you and your Bible. Unless you and your Bible have been in solitary confinement together from the day you were born.

    Purposefully mischaracterizing what I post, repeatedly, is childish, or a combination of, and including poor reading skills. Post 84 obviously states my background, which includes my parents, my father being a pastor, preaching, teaching within the church an in our home – and other pastors whom I’ve studied under. Your assertion is just as predictable as are a few other individuals, who have nothing better to do, than twist comments.

    IF you, read my comment @84 you just might get it right.

    Scripture below was used in post 84:

    12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

    13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:11-13

    The Spirit of God, the HOLY Spirit does teach and direct us.

    I have on occasion quoted Matthew Henry and a few others. However, my focus is on God’s Word, not mans interpretation, that includes Martin Luther. Many of these men have given sound advice, offered their opinion which lines up with Scripture, but there have been parts of their doctrine that do not align with Scripture, even with EXCUSES from their followers – because of this, I cannot agree with them, nor do I sit under their complete tutelage of Scripture.

  • Grace

    Tom @88

    There never has been a time, Grace, when it was just you and your Bible. Unless you and your Bible have been in solitary confinement together from the day you were born.

    Purposefully mischaracterizing what I post, repeatedly, is childish, or a combination of, and including poor reading skills. Post 84 obviously states my background, which includes my parents, my father being a pastor, preaching, teaching within the church an in our home – and other pastors whom I’ve studied under. Your assertion is just as predictable as are a few other individuals, who have nothing better to do, than twist comments.

    IF you, read my comment @84 you just might get it right.

    Scripture below was used in post 84:

    12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

    13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:11-13

    The Spirit of God, the HOLY Spirit does teach and direct us.

    I have on occasion quoted Matthew Henry and a few others. However, my focus is on God’s Word, not mans interpretation, that includes Martin Luther. Many of these men have given sound advice, offered their opinion which lines up with Scripture, but there have been parts of their doctrine that do not align with Scripture, even with EXCUSES from their followers – because of this, I cannot agree with them, nor do I sit under their complete tutelage of Scripture.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@89), in case you haven’t noticed, Lutherans “focus on God’s Word” every bit as much as you do — more so, I would argue. The fallacy here is that you somehow derive your beliefs more purely from Scripture than we do. Just like us, you were taught by men. Just like us, you compare what you were taught with Scripture to see if it’s true.

    The problem here isn’t that some of us only listen to the opinions of men, while others only read God’s Word. The problem is that we disagree on what God’s Word says, even as we appeal directly to it.

    I don’t know why that’s so hard for you to understand, but it clearly is, because here you are, still arguing that Lutherans rely on “man’s interpretation” — and, what’s more, implying (quite fallaciously) that Lutherans “sit under” Luther’s “complete tutelage of Scripture”.

    Honestly, how many times do we have to explain to you that no Lutheran subscribes to everything that Luther said about Scripture?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@89), in case you haven’t noticed, Lutherans “focus on God’s Word” every bit as much as you do — more so, I would argue. The fallacy here is that you somehow derive your beliefs more purely from Scripture than we do. Just like us, you were taught by men. Just like us, you compare what you were taught with Scripture to see if it’s true.

    The problem here isn’t that some of us only listen to the opinions of men, while others only read God’s Word. The problem is that we disagree on what God’s Word says, even as we appeal directly to it.

    I don’t know why that’s so hard for you to understand, but it clearly is, because here you are, still arguing that Lutherans rely on “man’s interpretation” — and, what’s more, implying (quite fallaciously) that Lutherans “sit under” Luther’s “complete tutelage of Scripture”.

    Honestly, how many times do we have to explain to you that no Lutheran subscribes to everything that Luther said about Scripture?

  • Grace

    tOOD

    Lutheran’s DEPEND upon the BoC, The Smalcald Articles of Martin Luther (1537), and many other books. I have no such dependence upon other books – there is a big difference between reading great works by Biblical scholars, and ‘dependence upon them. My dependence is upon the Word of God – The HOLY Spirit indwells within in me as a Believer in Jesus Christ, therefore my sole dependence regarding the written Word is the Bible.

    We have a difference of opinion, which I doubt will change. Let us leave it at that.

  • Grace

    tOOD

    Lutheran’s DEPEND upon the BoC, The Smalcald Articles of Martin Luther (1537), and many other books. I have no such dependence upon other books – there is a big difference between reading great works by Biblical scholars, and ‘dependence upon them. My dependence is upon the Word of God – The HOLY Spirit indwells within in me as a Believer in Jesus Christ, therefore my sole dependence regarding the written Word is the Bible.

    We have a difference of opinion, which I doubt will change. Let us leave it at that.

  • Grace

    Sorry tODD for misspelling your name.

  • Grace

    Sorry tODD for misspelling your name.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @91
    Let me fix your statement. We confess only the Book of Concord (single book, btw) because it confesses Scripture. We are dependent in them as any Christian is dependent on the confession of Scriptural truth. We, unlike you, do not seek to separate ourselves from the Church at large, which is what you are doing when you make yourself the sole arbiter of correct interpretation.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @91
    Let me fix your statement. We confess only the Book of Concord (single book, btw) because it confesses Scripture. We are dependent in them as any Christian is dependent on the confession of Scriptural truth. We, unlike you, do not seek to separate ourselves from the Church at large, which is what you are doing when you make yourself the sole arbiter of correct interpretation.

  • Grace

    Century @93

    YOU WROTE: We, unlike you, do not seek to separate ourselves from the Church at large, which is what you are doing when you make yourself the sole arbiter of correct interpretation.

    There is no reason to take a sophist, elaborate argument, in order to manipulate what I have posted, to ensue, because we disagree.

    We all have a responsibility to “study” and “dividing the word of truth” – this means I can think for myself after sitting under the tutelage of many pastors, reading and study many Biblical studies and books, … I have come to conclusions based on the Bible. I am not wishy/washy regarding what I believe, any more than you are. There is no reason to allow someone else to direct what I believe, when I have come to a different conclusion based on the Bible.

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    2 Timothy 2:15

    I don’t agree with a number of doctrinal beliefs, shared by different denominations. That however, does not define my belief as seeking to separate myself from the Church at large.

    Lutherans, just like Presbyterians, Pentecostal, and other groups believe differently – that doesn’t mean they are separate, or I am separated from the Church at large. There are some differences which I believe DO separate particular churches/groups from the body of Christian Believers.

  • Grace

    Century @93

    YOU WROTE: We, unlike you, do not seek to separate ourselves from the Church at large, which is what you are doing when you make yourself the sole arbiter of correct interpretation.

    There is no reason to take a sophist, elaborate argument, in order to manipulate what I have posted, to ensue, because we disagree.

    We all have a responsibility to “study” and “dividing the word of truth” – this means I can think for myself after sitting under the tutelage of many pastors, reading and study many Biblical studies and books, … I have come to conclusions based on the Bible. I am not wishy/washy regarding what I believe, any more than you are. There is no reason to allow someone else to direct what I believe, when I have come to a different conclusion based on the Bible.

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    2 Timothy 2:15

    I don’t agree with a number of doctrinal beliefs, shared by different denominations. That however, does not define my belief as seeking to separate myself from the Church at large.

    Lutherans, just like Presbyterians, Pentecostal, and other groups believe differently – that doesn’t mean they are separate, or I am separated from the Church at large. There are some differences which I believe DO separate particular churches/groups from the body of Christian Believers.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I have come to conclusions based on the Bible. I am not wishy/washy regarding what I believe, any more than you are. There is no reason to allow someone else to direct what I believe, when I have come to a different conclusion

    Thank you for proving my point, concerning sole arbiter.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I have come to conclusions based on the Bible. I am not wishy/washy regarding what I believe, any more than you are. There is no reason to allow someone else to direct what I believe, when I have come to a different conclusion

    Thank you for proving my point, concerning sole arbiter.

  • Grace

    I haven’t proven your point Century – what I have said is, that I study and come to conclusions based on my Biblical studies,…. don’t you do that, OR do you allow someone/anyone ‘but the HOLY Spirit, guiding you through the Bible, telling you what you can and cannot believe?

  • Grace

    I haven’t proven your point Century – what I have said is, that I study and come to conclusions based on my Biblical studies,…. don’t you do that, OR do you allow someone/anyone ‘but the HOLY Spirit, guiding you through the Bible, telling you what you can and cannot believe?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @96

    what I have said is, that I study and come to conclusions based on my Biblical studies

    Thank you again for proving further proof.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @96

    what I have said is, that I study and come to conclusions based on my Biblical studies

    Thank you again for proving further proof.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@91):

    Lutheran’s DEPEND upon the BoC, The Smalcald Articles of Martin Luther (1537), and many other books.

    You know, someone who doesn’t even know that the Smalcald Articles are part of the Book of Concord probably shouldn’t be so arrogant as to lecture Lutherans on what they believe.

    There is nothing in the Book of Concord that is not based in Scripture. We subscribe to the BoC precisely for this reason. If you wish to claim otherwise, you will have to provide evidence for your claim. I have never seen you do this. I’m not sure I’ve even seen you try.

    In fact, you’re much more adept at quoting from shoddily-researched anti-Lutheran websi… I’m sorry, I mean from relatively obscure works of Martin Luther than you are at quoting from the actual document that defines Lutheranism. Which, again, makes me wonder if you’re at all as informed as you’d like to pretend.

    I’m kidding, I don’t wonder at all.

    My dependence is upon the Word of God

    Except when it isn’t, of course. Remember John 20:23? Remember how you denied that it said what it clearly does? And what was your exegesis? “This passage of Scripture is often misunderstood.” And then you quoted Matthew Henry to us.

    Lutheran doctrine is solely based on the Word of God. Lutherans study the Word of God.

    It has been several years you’ve been slandering us on this blog, and you still have not learned even a basic fact as that?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@91):

    Lutheran’s DEPEND upon the BoC, The Smalcald Articles of Martin Luther (1537), and many other books.

    You know, someone who doesn’t even know that the Smalcald Articles are part of the Book of Concord probably shouldn’t be so arrogant as to lecture Lutherans on what they believe.

    There is nothing in the Book of Concord that is not based in Scripture. We subscribe to the BoC precisely for this reason. If you wish to claim otherwise, you will have to provide evidence for your claim. I have never seen you do this. I’m not sure I’ve even seen you try.

    In fact, you’re much more adept at quoting from shoddily-researched anti-Lutheran websi… I’m sorry, I mean from relatively obscure works of Martin Luther than you are at quoting from the actual document that defines Lutheranism. Which, again, makes me wonder if you’re at all as informed as you’d like to pretend.

    I’m kidding, I don’t wonder at all.

    My dependence is upon the Word of God

    Except when it isn’t, of course. Remember John 20:23? Remember how you denied that it said what it clearly does? And what was your exegesis? “This passage of Scripture is often misunderstood.” And then you quoted Matthew Henry to us.

    Lutheran doctrine is solely based on the Word of God. Lutherans study the Word of God.

    It has been several years you’ve been slandering us on this blog, and you still have not learned even a basic fact as that?

  • Grace

    tODD @ 98

    “You know, someone who doesn’t even know that the Smalcald Articles are part of the Book of Concord probably shouldn’t be so arrogant as to lecture Lutherans on what they believe.”

    No one said that the Smalcald Articles were not part of the BoC – but of course, in your bait style jump on whatever looks like a ‘catch to fill your time with nonsensical, predictable conclusions.

    As for John 20:23,……. No, I do not believe anyone can forgive the sins of anyone, (absolution) except those who have trespassed against the individual directly. No pastor can forgive anyone of their sins, only the LORD, there is but ONE mediator between man and God:

    For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
    1 Timothy 2:5

    Bait the size of sour grapes won’t work tODD, enjoy your fruit!

    Try and enjoy the rest of the day, it’s Sunday.

  • Grace

    tODD @ 98

    “You know, someone who doesn’t even know that the Smalcald Articles are part of the Book of Concord probably shouldn’t be so arrogant as to lecture Lutherans on what they believe.”

    No one said that the Smalcald Articles were not part of the BoC – but of course, in your bait style jump on whatever looks like a ‘catch to fill your time with nonsensical, predictable conclusions.

    As for John 20:23,……. No, I do not believe anyone can forgive the sins of anyone, (absolution) except those who have trespassed against the individual directly. No pastor can forgive anyone of their sins, only the LORD, there is but ONE mediator between man and God:

    For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
    1 Timothy 2:5

    Bait the size of sour grapes won’t work tODD, enjoy your fruit!

    Try and enjoy the rest of the day, it’s Sunday.

  • Grace

    There is much more on the thread you provided regarding Absolution. Thanks for bringing the thread to everyones attention.

  • Grace

    There is much more on the thread you provided regarding Absolution. Thanks for bringing the thread to everyones attention.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    You gotta love it when two people (Todd, Dan Kempin) chide Grace for supposedly misrepresenting Luther, yet turn right around and misrepresent me (and my Luther research). If they are so concerned about accuracy and truth, I suggest that they apply that noble goal a bit more liberally.

    First of all, I introduced (as far as I know) both citations to the Internet in the late 90s. Probably most uses of it online now can be traced back to me. The one about the Immaculate Conception came from my reading of Hartmann Grisar’s six-volume biography of Luther. A portion of it was included in my first published article in Febuary, 1993 (The Catholic Answer), and the entire citation as given by Grace, appears in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (completed in May 1996; self-published in 2001, pp. 202-203; Sophia Institute Press edition, 2003, pp. 205-206). It’s controversial because this particular sermon is not included in the 55-volume English collection Luther’s Works. But it is a genuine citation.

    The quote from Luther’s Explanation of the Magnificat drawn word-for-word from my paper, “Martin Luther’s Devotion to Mary”: one that is at least as old (online) as Nov. 1999, and which was written in 1994. It is no longer even online, on my site (I removed most or all of my older Luther papers as I learned more in my research and wrote newer, fuller papers). This probably came from Grisar, too, though I’d have to check back on that.

    In any event (I need to clarify and make clear, given the hysteria and alarmism in this thread, and accusations against my research), I never used this quote, myself, as any sort of defense of Luther believing that Mary was a mediatrix or channel of grace. I have never argued at any time that Luther believed that. It’s simply a devotional statement in which Luther expresses Mary’s extraordinary humility and Christocentric behavior: something with which we Catholics would heartily agree. Much more documentation about the first quote in a separate post (since I have been accused (without any basis whatsoever) of fabrications, shoddy research, etc. . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    You gotta love it when two people (Todd, Dan Kempin) chide Grace for supposedly misrepresenting Luther, yet turn right around and misrepresent me (and my Luther research). If they are so concerned about accuracy and truth, I suggest that they apply that noble goal a bit more liberally.

    First of all, I introduced (as far as I know) both citations to the Internet in the late 90s. Probably most uses of it online now can be traced back to me. The one about the Immaculate Conception came from my reading of Hartmann Grisar’s six-volume biography of Luther. A portion of it was included in my first published article in Febuary, 1993 (The Catholic Answer), and the entire citation as given by Grace, appears in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (completed in May 1996; self-published in 2001, pp. 202-203; Sophia Institute Press edition, 2003, pp. 205-206). It’s controversial because this particular sermon is not included in the 55-volume English collection Luther’s Works. But it is a genuine citation.

    The quote from Luther’s Explanation of the Magnificat drawn word-for-word from my paper, “Martin Luther’s Devotion to Mary”: one that is at least as old (online) as Nov. 1999, and which was written in 1994. It is no longer even online, on my site (I removed most or all of my older Luther papers as I learned more in my research and wrote newer, fuller papers). This probably came from Grisar, too, though I’d have to check back on that.

    In any event (I need to clarify and make clear, given the hysteria and alarmism in this thread, and accusations against my research), I never used this quote, myself, as any sort of defense of Luther believing that Mary was a mediatrix or channel of grace. I have never argued at any time that Luther believed that. It’s simply a devotional statement in which Luther expresses Mary’s extraordinary humility and Christocentric behavior: something with which we Catholics would heartily agree. Much more documentation about the first quote in a separate post (since I have been accused (without any basis whatsoever) of fabrications, shoddy research, etc. . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I am not “anti-Luther.” I am opposed to some tenets of Luther’s theology that I deem to be erroneous from a Catholic perspective. Catholics argue for Catholic theology; Lutherans for Lutheran theology. That’s not rocket science. But honest differences do not equate to being “anti-”.

    On my Luther and Lutheranism web page ( http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-lutheranism-index-page.html ) I have two sections of papers where I was either neutral on some view of Luther’s, or defended him against calumnies. In one fictional dialogue I even have Luther as saved in heaven.

    My book on Luther contains 89 pages (or roughly one-third of the total) devoted to areas where Luther and Catholics would agree. As a result, some Catholics have accused me of being soft on Luther.

    I am simply interested in Luther’s Mariology as a question of historic theology and comparative theology, because I am greatly interested in 1) Luther, 2) Mariology, and 3) the history and development of Christian theology and doctrine. I note where he agrees with Catholics and where he disagrees.

    Of course he has some strong disagreements, but he also agrees on many things, such as calling Mary “Mother of God” (Theotokos), her perpetual virginity, and (interestingly) in his espousal of her immaculate conception in a manner only slightly different from the Catholic dogmatic belief on that score. I’ve written four papers on the latter issue, and have done some very in-depth research on it (see the section on Mary on my Luther web page).

    The primary source of the Immaculate Conception citation is from the Weimar edition of Luther’s works (German standard collection): 17, II, 287-289 (German title: Am tage der Empfengknus Marie der mutter Gottes). This source was cited by Thomas A. O’Meara, O. P., in his book, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966, pp. 117-118). It was cited at length by the Catholic Archbishop William Ullathorne, in his book, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, revised by Canon Iles, Westminster: Art and Book Co., 1905 (pp. 132-134): this is in one of my papers.

    Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch, who was a major translator in the English set of the works of Luther, also mentioned it in The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII (edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992): footnote 22 on page 381: “Sermon on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (December 8?) 1527. Festival Postil (Festpostille). WA 17/2:288.17-34.”)

    This book is one of an ongoing series of works detailing ecumenical Catholic-Lutheran efforts. Twelve Lutheran and ten Catholic scholars participated. Their “Common Statement” (a sort of creed-like formulation agreed-upon by all) yielded some very interesting conclusions indeed:

    ===============

    Citation:

    (87) Luther himself professed the Immaculate Conception as a pleasing thought though not as an article of faith . . .

    (p. 54)

    (89) Luther preached on the Assumption . . . There were early Lutheran pastors who affirmed the Assumption as both evangelical and Lutheran.

    (p. 55)

    (101) From the Lutheran side, one may recall the honor and devotion paid to the Mother of God by Luther himself, including his own attitude to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which he accepted in some form.

    ==============

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I am not “anti-Luther.” I am opposed to some tenets of Luther’s theology that I deem to be erroneous from a Catholic perspective. Catholics argue for Catholic theology; Lutherans for Lutheran theology. That’s not rocket science. But honest differences do not equate to being “anti-”.

    On my Luther and Lutheranism web page ( http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-lutheranism-index-page.html ) I have two sections of papers where I was either neutral on some view of Luther’s, or defended him against calumnies. In one fictional dialogue I even have Luther as saved in heaven.

    My book on Luther contains 89 pages (or roughly one-third of the total) devoted to areas where Luther and Catholics would agree. As a result, some Catholics have accused me of being soft on Luther.

    I am simply interested in Luther’s Mariology as a question of historic theology and comparative theology, because I am greatly interested in 1) Luther, 2) Mariology, and 3) the history and development of Christian theology and doctrine. I note where he agrees with Catholics and where he disagrees.

    Of course he has some strong disagreements, but he also agrees on many things, such as calling Mary “Mother of God” (Theotokos), her perpetual virginity, and (interestingly) in his espousal of her immaculate conception in a manner only slightly different from the Catholic dogmatic belief on that score. I’ve written four papers on the latter issue, and have done some very in-depth research on it (see the section on Mary on my Luther web page).

    The primary source of the Immaculate Conception citation is from the Weimar edition of Luther’s works (German standard collection): 17, II, 287-289 (German title: Am tage der Empfengknus Marie der mutter Gottes). This source was cited by Thomas A. O’Meara, O. P., in his book, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966, pp. 117-118). It was cited at length by the Catholic Archbishop William Ullathorne, in his book, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, revised by Canon Iles, Westminster: Art and Book Co., 1905 (pp. 132-134): this is in one of my papers.

    Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch, who was a major translator in the English set of the works of Luther, also mentioned it in The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII (edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992): footnote 22 on page 381: “Sermon on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (December 8?) 1527. Festival Postil (Festpostille). WA 17/2:288.17-34.”)

    This book is one of an ongoing series of works detailing ecumenical Catholic-Lutheran efforts. Twelve Lutheran and ten Catholic scholars participated. Their “Common Statement” (a sort of creed-like formulation agreed-upon by all) yielded some very interesting conclusions indeed:

    ===============

    Citation:

    (87) Luther himself professed the Immaculate Conception as a pleasing thought though not as an article of faith . . .

    (p. 54)

    (89) Luther preached on the Assumption . . . There were early Lutheran pastors who affirmed the Assumption as both evangelical and Lutheran.

    (p. 55)

    (101) From the Lutheran side, one may recall the honor and devotion paid to the Mother of God by Luther himself, including his own attitude to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which he accepted in some form.

    ==============

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    {continuing the previous post . . .}

    Footnote 20 for this section, on pp. 340-341, is very informative:

    ============
    Citation:

    With regard to the Immaculate Conception, Luther taught that Mary had been conceived in sin but her soul had been purified by infusion after conception. Sermon on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 1527. Festival Postil (Festpostille). WA 17/2:288.17-34.
    ==========================

    See also: Michael O’Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1982, 226-228.

    If there is still any doubt in Protestant minds that this is a genuine sermon of Luther’s, I would direct such skeptics to an extremely in-depth article by a Reformed apologist and frequent defender of Luther: “Luther: the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin” (11-14-10):

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-infusion-of-marys-soul-was.html

    Luther did modify his view somewhat in later years, and it is a bit complex to explain the differences. I go through all that in my four papers on Luther and the Immaculate Conception. But his Mariology, even in its final, most developed form, is still more robust than virtually any Lutherans’ views today.

    I have shown how my citation was quite genuine. This fuller source information has been online for many years on my site: I think going back to 2002 or 2003 in this case. If Todd or Dan wish to spar with Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch about that (or the Reformed apologist), it would be fun to see. Anyone who reads German can consult the Weimar edition and verify it for themselves.

    I claim that Luther agreed with Catholics in some ways regarding Mary and disagreed with others. If that is too subtle and nuanced for Dan or Todd to grasp, that’s their problem, not mine or my readers’. Nor is my goal to slander Luther. In these particular papers I am mostly in agreement with him, so it is hardly “slander” from my viewpoint. How is it “slander” to note that Luther accepted a version of the Immaculate Conception that is almost identical to my own Catholic view? That is an absurd notion.

    Luther believed what he believed, and this can be shown. I don’t agree with all he held; nor do Lutherans. But facts is facts. If someone thinks differently, then solid research will be required, I’m afraid, not name-calling and misrepresentations of and casting aspersions upon the in-depth research of others with whom one disagrees theologically.

    My research can stand, generally speaking, and I would challenge anyone who disagrees to prove their contentions: put their money where their (big) mouth is. I can be wrong like anyone else, and modify my opinions when corrected, but a general view that my Luther research is “half-fabricated” and “partially spurious” and “poorly researched” and “Luther-bashing quote-mangling” and “extremely shoddy” (all the words of Todd) is a bunch of bunk.

    Here is my latest paper, that responds to these charges, with lots of links:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/10/bogus-charge-of-my-alleged-pathetic.html

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    {continuing the previous post . . .}

    Footnote 20 for this section, on pp. 340-341, is very informative:

    ============
    Citation:

    With regard to the Immaculate Conception, Luther taught that Mary had been conceived in sin but her soul had been purified by infusion after conception. Sermon on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 1527. Festival Postil (Festpostille). WA 17/2:288.17-34.
    ==========================

    See also: Michael O’Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1982, 226-228.

    If there is still any doubt in Protestant minds that this is a genuine sermon of Luther’s, I would direct such skeptics to an extremely in-depth article by a Reformed apologist and frequent defender of Luther: “Luther: the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin” (11-14-10):

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-infusion-of-marys-soul-was.html

    Luther did modify his view somewhat in later years, and it is a bit complex to explain the differences. I go through all that in my four papers on Luther and the Immaculate Conception. But his Mariology, even in its final, most developed form, is still more robust than virtually any Lutherans’ views today.

    I have shown how my citation was quite genuine. This fuller source information has been online for many years on my site: I think going back to 2002 or 2003 in this case. If Todd or Dan wish to spar with Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch about that (or the Reformed apologist), it would be fun to see. Anyone who reads German can consult the Weimar edition and verify it for themselves.

    I claim that Luther agreed with Catholics in some ways regarding Mary and disagreed with others. If that is too subtle and nuanced for Dan or Todd to grasp, that’s their problem, not mine or my readers’. Nor is my goal to slander Luther. In these particular papers I am mostly in agreement with him, so it is hardly “slander” from my viewpoint. How is it “slander” to note that Luther accepted a version of the Immaculate Conception that is almost identical to my own Catholic view? That is an absurd notion.

    Luther believed what he believed, and this can be shown. I don’t agree with all he held; nor do Lutherans. But facts is facts. If someone thinks differently, then solid research will be required, I’m afraid, not name-calling and misrepresentations of and casting aspersions upon the in-depth research of others with whom one disagrees theologically.

    My research can stand, generally speaking, and I would challenge anyone who disagrees to prove their contentions: put their money where their (big) mouth is. I can be wrong like anyone else, and modify my opinions when corrected, but a general view that my Luther research is “half-fabricated” and “partially spurious” and “poorly researched” and “Luther-bashing quote-mangling” and “extremely shoddy” (all the words of Todd) is a bunch of bunk.

    Here is my latest paper, that responds to these charges, with lots of links:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/10/bogus-charge-of-my-alleged-pathetic.html

  • Grace

    Dave Armstrong,

    James Swan uses many of these quotes, not only on “Beggers all Reformation” but on Carm. I have read many of his posts.

    Many ask whether he is a Lutheran or Calvinist. It appears James Swan is a Calvinist.

    Thank you for coming on this blog and giving a different perspective,

  • Grace

    Dave Armstrong,

    James Swan uses many of these quotes, not only on “Beggers all Reformation” but on Carm. I have read many of his posts.

    Many ask whether he is a Lutheran or Calvinist. It appears James Swan is a Calvinist.

    Thank you for coming on this blog and giving a different perspective,

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    You’re welcome, Grace. I meant to mention also that anyone is welcome to comment under my paper, in the combox.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    You’re welcome, Grace. I meant to mention also that anyone is welcome to comment under my paper, in the combox.

  • Tom Hering

    I’m not sure what to make of a Roman Catholic apologist defending a non-denominational Evangelical who likes to regularly slander Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism – and this on a blog that’s authored by a Lutheran, and frequented by Lutherans. The world gets weirder every day.

  • Tom Hering

    I’m not sure what to make of a Roman Catholic apologist defending a non-denominational Evangelical who likes to regularly slander Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism – and this on a blog that’s authored by a Lutheran, and frequented by Lutherans. The world gets weirder every day.

  • Dust

    Tom (et al) at 106 don’t think about it….here’s your chance to go toe-to-toe with someone who has actually researched and written on less than favorable comments on Luther; in short, source material, not second hand, or here say, if you will, as if from Grace (with all due respect Grace)…if you don’t take a stand, in a grand Lutheran style, that could be considered weird too, eh? Go get ‘em….this could take hundreds and hundreds of comments and perhaps mean a new blog record :)

  • Dust

    Tom (et al) at 106 don’t think about it….here’s your chance to go toe-to-toe with someone who has actually researched and written on less than favorable comments on Luther; in short, source material, not second hand, or here say, if you will, as if from Grace (with all due respect Grace)…if you don’t take a stand, in a grand Lutheran style, that could be considered weird too, eh? Go get ‘em….this could take hundreds and hundreds of comments and perhaps mean a new blog record :)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I’m not sure what to make of a Roman Catholic apologist defending a non-denominational Evangelical

    Who’s defending Grace? I was defending myself against the charges made by Todd and Dan, that I engage in research so bad that I fabricate quotations, and all with an “anti-Luther” motivation. She didn’t misrepresent him insofar as she cited my quotes from Luther, because I didn’t misrepresent Luther. I didn’t even read 90% of her comments in this thread.

    who likes to regularly slander Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism

    I don’t know what she does or doesn’t do. I don’t know who she is at all. This is all irrelevant to my reply.

    – and this on a blog that’s authored by a Lutheran, and frequented by Lutherans.

    How is it at all relevant what the blog is devoted to or who runs it? My name was brought up (in a venue that was public) and associated with atrocious research. If my name hadn’t been mentioned as a source I would never have found this (I discovered it in a Google blog search that I run regularly). As usual, the folks who want to run me down didn’t have the courtesy to let me know about what they were saying. This is precisely why I do such searches, because critics rarely let one know they are being criticized. The unwillingness to make such a communication is usually directly proportionate to the ignorance and cluelessness of the criticism (as presently).

    Since my name and research has been dragged through the mud, I have every intellectual right to come and give my side of it. And you want to quibble that it is a Lutheran blog? I don’t care if it is a red-headed, green-eyed Rastafarian blog. It has absolutely nothing to do with a public claim being made about x, and x being able to respond publicly in the same venue, and face his accusers.

    The world gets weirder every day.

    Yes it sure does, and you are contributing to that with these weird, odd comments that show but a dim comprehension of why I commented here at all.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I’m not sure what to make of a Roman Catholic apologist defending a non-denominational Evangelical

    Who’s defending Grace? I was defending myself against the charges made by Todd and Dan, that I engage in research so bad that I fabricate quotations, and all with an “anti-Luther” motivation. She didn’t misrepresent him insofar as she cited my quotes from Luther, because I didn’t misrepresent Luther. I didn’t even read 90% of her comments in this thread.

    who likes to regularly slander Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism

    I don’t know what she does or doesn’t do. I don’t know who she is at all. This is all irrelevant to my reply.

    – and this on a blog that’s authored by a Lutheran, and frequented by Lutherans.

    How is it at all relevant what the blog is devoted to or who runs it? My name was brought up (in a venue that was public) and associated with atrocious research. If my name hadn’t been mentioned as a source I would never have found this (I discovered it in a Google blog search that I run regularly). As usual, the folks who want to run me down didn’t have the courtesy to let me know about what they were saying. This is precisely why I do such searches, because critics rarely let one know they are being criticized. The unwillingness to make such a communication is usually directly proportionate to the ignorance and cluelessness of the criticism (as presently).

    Since my name and research has been dragged through the mud, I have every intellectual right to come and give my side of it. And you want to quibble that it is a Lutheran blog? I don’t care if it is a red-headed, green-eyed Rastafarian blog. It has absolutely nothing to do with a public claim being made about x, and x being able to respond publicly in the same venue, and face his accusers.

    The world gets weirder every day.

    Yes it sure does, and you are contributing to that with these weird, odd comments that show but a dim comprehension of why I commented here at all.

  • Dust

    Dave….your website looks very interesting and will visit more often and read up on your work. Thanks very much for providing a link to it!

    My guess is many of the issues that get good Lutheran folks all worked up and nervous, are over very subtle points involving very complex explanations, etc. These are probably not very easy to discuss in real time with everyone in the same room, and am very sure it will be virtually impossible to make much progress on this blog. It will be fun to read and see where this all ends up…good luck and hang in there brother :)

  • Dust

    Dave….your website looks very interesting and will visit more often and read up on your work. Thanks very much for providing a link to it!

    My guess is many of the issues that get good Lutheran folks all worked up and nervous, are over very subtle points involving very complex explanations, etc. These are probably not very easy to discuss in real time with everyone in the same room, and am very sure it will be virtually impossible to make much progress on this blog. It will be fun to read and see where this all ends up…good luck and hang in there brother :)

  • Grace

    Thank you to my good friend Dust. I agree with your comment “hang in the brother” -

    Dave Armstrong,

    What would the temperature be if, any well known pastors/teachers, denominations, brought forth doctrine, no matter how many years hence, which would endanger ANYONE, in ANY way? One can disguise these questions and make excuses, but they don’t work. What would be their fate? EXPULSION?

    The problem is, how much are we, as commentators allowed to speak our views, without malice, can FREELY ask questions, without recrimination, or DISPELLED/EXPELLED as commenters on this blog? Who’s afraid of the TRUTH, or is the TRUTH referred to as a problem/disruption, or should we treat this blog as a church? – at which I answer, “it isn’t a church, it never was presented as a church, but a place to discuss beliefs, or debate which one believes. When that ceases exist, or be an OPTION, there is no debate, there is only HARD CORE DEMANDS upon discussion answers, ….. dependent upon, SO CALLED ‘appropriate responses’ – therefore there is no discussion. ONLY predisposed commentaries from those who have mastered the art of answering the pleasure of the hearers!

  • Grace

    Thank you to my good friend Dust. I agree with your comment “hang in the brother” -

    Dave Armstrong,

    What would the temperature be if, any well known pastors/teachers, denominations, brought forth doctrine, no matter how many years hence, which would endanger ANYONE, in ANY way? One can disguise these questions and make excuses, but they don’t work. What would be their fate? EXPULSION?

    The problem is, how much are we, as commentators allowed to speak our views, without malice, can FREELY ask questions, without recrimination, or DISPELLED/EXPELLED as commenters on this blog? Who’s afraid of the TRUTH, or is the TRUTH referred to as a problem/disruption, or should we treat this blog as a church? – at which I answer, “it isn’t a church, it never was presented as a church, but a place to discuss beliefs, or debate which one believes. When that ceases exist, or be an OPTION, there is no debate, there is only HARD CORE DEMANDS upon discussion answers, ….. dependent upon, SO CALLED ‘appropriate responses’ – therefore there is no discussion. ONLY predisposed commentaries from those who have mastered the art of answering the pleasure of the hearers!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave, I had to re-read my comments to see if I had even mentioned your name that you would feel the need to respond to me. I hadn’t (Dan did, @59), but I did, somewhat unfortunately, link (@61) to a site that contains an article of yours.

    I say “somewhat unfortunately” because I wasn’t really paying close attention to the sites I offhandedly referred to. They were, as I said, offered as examples of

    any number of websites whose biases are clear[1][2][3] — two of which are pro-Catholic, and the other of which is cleverly titled “Martin Loser”, among others.

    And, indeed, if you peruse the first two sites, you’ll see what I mean. A collection of random quotes with no explanation, much less context. It was especially the “Martin Loser” site, which I listed first, that I had in mind. Honestly, give it a look. Quality stuff, that.

    Or, heck, type in the quotes (of yours) that Grace pasted and see on what sites they’re found. Tell me if you disagree that such sites are not, in fact, “poorly researched”.

    But, like I said, your article on CatholicCulture.org was in the first three results I found, and I included it without much noticing that you actually included explanatory comments along with the Luther quotes. I certainly had no idea that yours was (apparently) the source for all those other slapdash websites. So for including you in my links, I apologize.

    That said, my comment (@53) probably best explains my criticism of the alleged “Magnificat” quote that Grace offered up (@16):

    At the very least, the quote you offered (@16) is a piecemeal quote that should have ellipses in it, but doesn’t. But I can’t even find most of it in Luther’s explanation of the Magnificat.

    And this is true, though I notice now that the omission of the ellipses (which I still consider to be misrepresentative and shoddy work) is apparently unique to Grace’s sort-of quotation of your citation.

    Still, it’s true that I can’t find most of what you say is in Luther’s “Magnificat”. Perhaps you can help me out here. As I have already said, I can find the bit about “Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God”, though I have also already shown that this sentence in no way means what Grace would have us believe. What I can’t find are the preceeding two bits:

    One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace … Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.

    I’ve already pointed to the place I’m reading Luther’s “Magnificat”, which, though poorly formatted, is itself taken from Muhlenberg Press’ Works of Martin Luther. I have searched and searched that online version, and I can’t find any quotes similar to those bits above which were in your original article.

    You seem to say that this quote (again, a piecemeal collection from “Magnificat”) “probably came from Grisar, too, though I’d have to check back on that.” Could you? Because, while I’m fully ready to believe that the online source I’m browsing isn’t perfect, it is all I have to go off at this point.

    As to your Immaculate Conception quote, I do not believe I addressed either you or your research.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave, I had to re-read my comments to see if I had even mentioned your name that you would feel the need to respond to me. I hadn’t (Dan did, @59), but I did, somewhat unfortunately, link (@61) to a site that contains an article of yours.

    I say “somewhat unfortunately” because I wasn’t really paying close attention to the sites I offhandedly referred to. They were, as I said, offered as examples of

    any number of websites whose biases are clear[1][2][3] — two of which are pro-Catholic, and the other of which is cleverly titled “Martin Loser”, among others.

    And, indeed, if you peruse the first two sites, you’ll see what I mean. A collection of random quotes with no explanation, much less context. It was especially the “Martin Loser” site, which I listed first, that I had in mind. Honestly, give it a look. Quality stuff, that.

    Or, heck, type in the quotes (of yours) that Grace pasted and see on what sites they’re found. Tell me if you disagree that such sites are not, in fact, “poorly researched”.

    But, like I said, your article on CatholicCulture.org was in the first three results I found, and I included it without much noticing that you actually included explanatory comments along with the Luther quotes. I certainly had no idea that yours was (apparently) the source for all those other slapdash websites. So for including you in my links, I apologize.

    That said, my comment (@53) probably best explains my criticism of the alleged “Magnificat” quote that Grace offered up (@16):

    At the very least, the quote you offered (@16) is a piecemeal quote that should have ellipses in it, but doesn’t. But I can’t even find most of it in Luther’s explanation of the Magnificat.

    And this is true, though I notice now that the omission of the ellipses (which I still consider to be misrepresentative and shoddy work) is apparently unique to Grace’s sort-of quotation of your citation.

    Still, it’s true that I can’t find most of what you say is in Luther’s “Magnificat”. Perhaps you can help me out here. As I have already said, I can find the bit about “Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God”, though I have also already shown that this sentence in no way means what Grace would have us believe. What I can’t find are the preceeding two bits:

    One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace … Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.

    I’ve already pointed to the place I’m reading Luther’s “Magnificat”, which, though poorly formatted, is itself taken from Muhlenberg Press’ Works of Martin Luther. I have searched and searched that online version, and I can’t find any quotes similar to those bits above which were in your original article.

    You seem to say that this quote (again, a piecemeal collection from “Magnificat”) “probably came from Grisar, too, though I’d have to check back on that.” Could you? Because, while I’m fully ready to believe that the online source I’m browsing isn’t perfect, it is all I have to go off at this point.

    As to your Immaculate Conception quote, I do not believe I addressed either you or your research.

  • Dan Kempin

    And now Dave Armstrong is here to comment! Truly the internet is a wondrous place. I’m glad I checked back, as I almost missed it.

    First, Dave, I want to thank you for checking in here personally. My opinion of you has risen significantly, since I value debate between those who disagree more than the echo chamber debate of “yeah, that’s right.”

    Next, let me own up to my own comment. I believe I evaluated you as a “shameless” Roman Catholic author. (#58) I’m not sure you would disagree with that. I rather suspect you would take it as a compliment. Let me acknowledge here that I am a shameless lutheran.

    More to the point, though, the issue under discussion on this thread was not your work, but citations. Your research was apparently being cited, without giving credit to you, in a way that made it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to find the specific quotes cited. This is not your fault, but your name was brought up here as the apparent source of research that was being laid down as original by someone else. Even so, you have cleared that up to a large degree by revealing that you, in turn, were quoting another author’s research.

    For clearing that up and for the other citations, we are thankful. I would enjoy the further opportunity to exchange with you directly and thus avoid the opportunity to “misrepresent” one another.

    Finally, I understand that you are from the Detroit area. Congratulations on a pretty good day in professional sports yesterday.

  • Dan Kempin

    And now Dave Armstrong is here to comment! Truly the internet is a wondrous place. I’m glad I checked back, as I almost missed it.

    First, Dave, I want to thank you for checking in here personally. My opinion of you has risen significantly, since I value debate between those who disagree more than the echo chamber debate of “yeah, that’s right.”

    Next, let me own up to my own comment. I believe I evaluated you as a “shameless” Roman Catholic author. (#58) I’m not sure you would disagree with that. I rather suspect you would take it as a compliment. Let me acknowledge here that I am a shameless lutheran.

    More to the point, though, the issue under discussion on this thread was not your work, but citations. Your research was apparently being cited, without giving credit to you, in a way that made it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to find the specific quotes cited. This is not your fault, but your name was brought up here as the apparent source of research that was being laid down as original by someone else. Even so, you have cleared that up to a large degree by revealing that you, in turn, were quoting another author’s research.

    For clearing that up and for the other citations, we are thankful. I would enjoy the further opportunity to exchange with you directly and thus avoid the opportunity to “misrepresent” one another.

    Finally, I understand that you are from the Detroit area. Congratulations on a pretty good day in professional sports yesterday.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave Armstrong, #101,

    As an afterthought, I suppose I should also own up to the word “slander” that appears in my post #58. As I re-read, I may have given the impression that I was accusing you of slandering Luther. Not necessarily. (In all fairness, we have not had the debate.)

    I was pointing out the irony that commenter “grace,” rather anti-Catholic in her sentiments, was using a very Catholic source for her research. (Anonymously, of course.)

    So the comment was directed at you, grace, and I admit now that it was uncalled for. I apologize to you both, and like Augustine offer a “retraction” of the word “slander. I instead use the phrase “wilfully intractable” to describe grace’s insistence on proclaiming what lutherans believe, to the consternation of the actual lutherans trying to correct her.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave Armstrong, #101,

    As an afterthought, I suppose I should also own up to the word “slander” that appears in my post #58. As I re-read, I may have given the impression that I was accusing you of slandering Luther. Not necessarily. (In all fairness, we have not had the debate.)

    I was pointing out the irony that commenter “grace,” rather anti-Catholic in her sentiments, was using a very Catholic source for her research. (Anonymously, of course.)

    So the comment was directed at you, grace, and I admit now that it was uncalled for. I apologize to you both, and like Augustine offer a “retraction” of the word “slander. I instead use the phrase “wilfully intractable” to describe grace’s insistence on proclaiming what lutherans believe, to the consternation of the actual lutherans trying to correct her.

  • Tom Hering

    “Who’s defending Grace?” – Dave Armstrong @ 108.

    Dave, the very first words out of your mouth here (@ 101) were, “You gotta love it when two people … chide Grace for supposedly misrepresenting Luther …” (emphasis added). You kind of established your sympathies right off the bat, don’t you think? And I wonder how, if you “didn’t even read 90% of her comments in this thread,” you can say anything at all on the subject of Grace misrepresenting Luther.

    I love the smell of offended RC apologists in the morning. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    “Who’s defending Grace?” – Dave Armstrong @ 108.

    Dave, the very first words out of your mouth here (@ 101) were, “You gotta love it when two people … chide Grace for supposedly misrepresenting Luther …” (emphasis added). You kind of established your sympathies right off the bat, don’t you think? And I wonder how, if you “didn’t even read 90% of her comments in this thread,” you can say anything at all on the subject of Grace misrepresenting Luther.

    I love the smell of offended RC apologists in the morning. :-D

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dust,

    Dave….your website looks very interesting and will visit more often and read up on your work. Thanks very much for providing a link to it!

    You’re welcome. Thanks for the compliment, and for reading.

    My guess is many of the issues that get good Lutheran folks all worked up and nervous, are over very subtle points involving very complex explanations, etc.

    Sounds like every other Christian group . . . we love to bicker and fight, don’t we, and major on the minors. Meanwhile, the world goes to hell in a handbasket, with the salt of the earth hopelessly divided and scarcely giving an appealing witness to Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. But there is a place for honest disagreement within an overall ecumenical perspective: precisely as the pope was trying to do (emphasizing the latter).

    These are probably not very easy to discuss in real time with everyone in the same room, and am very sure it will be virtually impossible to make much progress on this blog.

    I take a very dim view of most Internet discussions (I virtually ceased going to theological forums many years ago), but the comments I just skimmed look pretty decent, so maybe a normal conversation can be had.

    It will be fun to read and see where this all ends up…good luck and hang in there brother

    I’ll hang out as long as good constructive discussion takes place. If it goes to insults and mud fights, I have many better things to do. I have enjoyed dialoguing with many Lutherans in the past, including pastors. I have one Lutheran right now who has been visiting my blog, who has been very friendly, and wants to interact with my posts where I critiqued Chemnitz.

    I appreciate your friendliness. God bless you (and all here).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dust,

    Dave….your website looks very interesting and will visit more often and read up on your work. Thanks very much for providing a link to it!

    You’re welcome. Thanks for the compliment, and for reading.

    My guess is many of the issues that get good Lutheran folks all worked up and nervous, are over very subtle points involving very complex explanations, etc.

    Sounds like every other Christian group . . . we love to bicker and fight, don’t we, and major on the minors. Meanwhile, the world goes to hell in a handbasket, with the salt of the earth hopelessly divided and scarcely giving an appealing witness to Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. But there is a place for honest disagreement within an overall ecumenical perspective: precisely as the pope was trying to do (emphasizing the latter).

    These are probably not very easy to discuss in real time with everyone in the same room, and am very sure it will be virtually impossible to make much progress on this blog.

    I take a very dim view of most Internet discussions (I virtually ceased going to theological forums many years ago), but the comments I just skimmed look pretty decent, so maybe a normal conversation can be had.

    It will be fun to read and see where this all ends up…good luck and hang in there brother

    I’ll hang out as long as good constructive discussion takes place. If it goes to insults and mud fights, I have many better things to do. I have enjoyed dialoguing with many Lutherans in the past, including pastors. I have one Lutheran right now who has been visiting my blog, who has been very friendly, and wants to interact with my posts where I critiqued Chemnitz.

    I appreciate your friendliness. God bless you (and all here).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Tom,

    Dave, the very first words out of your mouth here (@ 101) were, “You gotta love it when two people … chide Grace for supposedly misrepresenting Luther …” (emphasis added).

    I figured you would make an issue of one word interpreted with little regard for context. Like I said, I know nothing about Grace. But let’s play your game. I also wrote: “She didn’t misrepresent him insofar as she cited my quotes from Luther . . .” My only concern for Grace’s position in this situation is how she cited my words (and caught flak for it, simply because folks didn’t like some of Luther’s own words). I have expressed no opinion on anything else she has argued here. Like I said, I didn’t even read most of it. Yet you are convinced I have some profound bias towards her expressed opinions.

    You kind of established your sympathies right off the bat, don’t you think?

    Absolutely. I am very biased towards my own work and am willing to defend it, or retract where that necessity arises out of discussion and correction. I’m weird that way.

    And I wonder how, if you “didn’t even read 90% of her comments in this thread,” you can say anything at all on the subject of Grace misrepresenting Luther.

    Again (read this real slowly . . .), I commented on her only insofar as she had anything to do with me. She did by using a quote that appeared in my book, and a second from one of my Internet papers.

    I love the smell of offended RC apologists in the morning.

    Then you need to get a life, if that is what you think you smell. I’m trying to have a rational discussion. I think it is possible with some here; probably not with you, judging from our present “discussion.” But four out of five ain’t bad. I’ll take it!

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Tom,

    Dave, the very first words out of your mouth here (@ 101) were, “You gotta love it when two people … chide Grace for supposedly misrepresenting Luther …” (emphasis added).

    I figured you would make an issue of one word interpreted with little regard for context. Like I said, I know nothing about Grace. But let’s play your game. I also wrote: “She didn’t misrepresent him insofar as she cited my quotes from Luther . . .” My only concern for Grace’s position in this situation is how she cited my words (and caught flak for it, simply because folks didn’t like some of Luther’s own words). I have expressed no opinion on anything else she has argued here. Like I said, I didn’t even read most of it. Yet you are convinced I have some profound bias towards her expressed opinions.

    You kind of established your sympathies right off the bat, don’t you think?

    Absolutely. I am very biased towards my own work and am willing to defend it, or retract where that necessity arises out of discussion and correction. I’m weird that way.

    And I wonder how, if you “didn’t even read 90% of her comments in this thread,” you can say anything at all on the subject of Grace misrepresenting Luther.

    Again (read this real slowly . . .), I commented on her only insofar as she had anything to do with me. She did by using a quote that appeared in my book, and a second from one of my Internet papers.

    I love the smell of offended RC apologists in the morning.

    Then you need to get a life, if that is what you think you smell. I’m trying to have a rational discussion. I think it is possible with some here; probably not with you, judging from our present “discussion.” But four out of five ain’t bad. I’ll take it!

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Grace,

    Yep; this is the trouble with most Internet discussions today where people disagree. It quickly becomes a farce. It can only be overcome by intelligent comments with lots of documented, tightly-argued reasoning, and refusing to enter into the mudslinging. I’ve long been a critic of Internet forums and the mentality of relentless ad hominem attacks (many papers).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Grace,

    Yep; this is the trouble with most Internet discussions today where people disagree. It quickly becomes a farce. It can only be overcome by intelligent comments with lots of documented, tightly-argued reasoning, and refusing to enter into the mudslinging. I’ve long been a critic of Internet forums and the mentality of relentless ad hominem attacks (many papers).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    And (I hasten to add) I’ve found these problems in venues of all persuasions, including Catholic ones, so I’m not just referring to the reception of Catholics in Protestant forums (or of people of any different outlook within Protestantism) . Often, Protestants are treated abominably in Catholic venues.

    It’s largely a media problem (no face-to-face interaction, no voices, body language, inflections, smiles, etc.). People aren’t nearly as rude or insulting in person, because then the social pressure is greatly towards politeness and being perceived as a “nice person.”

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    And (I hasten to add) I’ve found these problems in venues of all persuasions, including Catholic ones, so I’m not just referring to the reception of Catholics in Protestant forums (or of people of any different outlook within Protestantism) . Often, Protestants are treated abominably in Catholic venues.

    It’s largely a media problem (no face-to-face interaction, no voices, body language, inflections, smiles, etc.). People aren’t nearly as rude or insulting in person, because then the social pressure is greatly towards politeness and being perceived as a “nice person.”

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Todd,

    Dave, I had to re-read my comments to see if I had even mentioned your name that you would feel the need to respond to me. I hadn’t (Dan did, @59), but I did, somewhat unfortunately, link (@61) to a site that contains an article of yours.

    It was a situation of allegedly “shoddy” research being bashed (complete with “fabricated” words); it turned out that the two Luther citations were drawn from my work (alas, without attribution); then my name was indeed mentioned (by Dan). If one person only is named, then for those reading, that person is associated with all the charges being slung around. And that is a scenario where the person has the right to respond and defend his work.

    I say “somewhat unfortunately” because I wasn’t really paying close attention to the sites I offhandedly referred to.

    Luther quotes are often used in an irresponsible manner; I agree. I’ve learned many things about Luther myself, the more I have studied him through the years. My own quotes, I find, are too often used in a manner that I would not sanction myself.

    But I would say that inaccuracy is not guaranteed simply because a site is Catholic. I’ve had bigwig Lutherans (at good ol’ Concordia this or that) tell me that Luther never sanctioned capital punishment for heresy, when it is well-known that he did. I knew this in 1984 as a Protestant, when I read Bainton’s Here I Stand (he documents it). Yet Lutherans who supposedly are informed will vigorously deny this. So there is enough bias to go around.

    And, indeed, if you peruse the first two sites, you’ll see what I mean. A collection of random quotes with no explanation, much less context. It was especially the “Martin Loser” site, which I listed first, that I had in mind. Honestly, give it a look. Quality stuff, that.

    I know that happens a lot, so I’ll take your word for it.

    Or, heck, type in the quotes (of yours) that Grace pasted and see on what sites they’re found. Tell me if you disagree that such sites are not, in fact, “poorly researched”.

    Oftentimes, yes. I know because citations that I originated on the Internet are usually used without noting where they came from (my books or papers). So the secondary source (myself) was eliminated, so that folks can’t check the context where I presented the quote.

    But, like I said, your article on CatholicCulture.org was in the first three results I found, and I included it without much noticing that you actually included explanatory comments along with the Luther quotes. I certainly had no idea that yours was (apparently) the source for all those other slapdash websites. So for including you in my links, I apologize.

    I understand. Thanks. My research has been bashed many times before, so you’ll understand that I get a little tired of that. It’s refreshing to be able to talk and make the point that I am not like every site that cites Luther’s one-liners, etc. I appreciate the opportunity.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Todd,

    Dave, I had to re-read my comments to see if I had even mentioned your name that you would feel the need to respond to me. I hadn’t (Dan did, @59), but I did, somewhat unfortunately, link (@61) to a site that contains an article of yours.

    It was a situation of allegedly “shoddy” research being bashed (complete with “fabricated” words); it turned out that the two Luther citations were drawn from my work (alas, without attribution); then my name was indeed mentioned (by Dan). If one person only is named, then for those reading, that person is associated with all the charges being slung around. And that is a scenario where the person has the right to respond and defend his work.

    I say “somewhat unfortunately” because I wasn’t really paying close attention to the sites I offhandedly referred to.

    Luther quotes are often used in an irresponsible manner; I agree. I’ve learned many things about Luther myself, the more I have studied him through the years. My own quotes, I find, are too often used in a manner that I would not sanction myself.

    But I would say that inaccuracy is not guaranteed simply because a site is Catholic. I’ve had bigwig Lutherans (at good ol’ Concordia this or that) tell me that Luther never sanctioned capital punishment for heresy, when it is well-known that he did. I knew this in 1984 as a Protestant, when I read Bainton’s Here I Stand (he documents it). Yet Lutherans who supposedly are informed will vigorously deny this. So there is enough bias to go around.

    And, indeed, if you peruse the first two sites, you’ll see what I mean. A collection of random quotes with no explanation, much less context. It was especially the “Martin Loser” site, which I listed first, that I had in mind. Honestly, give it a look. Quality stuff, that.

    I know that happens a lot, so I’ll take your word for it.

    Or, heck, type in the quotes (of yours) that Grace pasted and see on what sites they’re found. Tell me if you disagree that such sites are not, in fact, “poorly researched”.

    Oftentimes, yes. I know because citations that I originated on the Internet are usually used without noting where they came from (my books or papers). So the secondary source (myself) was eliminated, so that folks can’t check the context where I presented the quote.

    But, like I said, your article on CatholicCulture.org was in the first three results I found, and I included it without much noticing that you actually included explanatory comments along with the Luther quotes. I certainly had no idea that yours was (apparently) the source for all those other slapdash websites. So for including you in my links, I apologize.

    I understand. Thanks. My research has been bashed many times before, so you’ll understand that I get a little tired of that. It’s refreshing to be able to talk and make the point that I am not like every site that cites Luther’s one-liners, etc. I appreciate the opportunity.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    {continued}

    That said, my comment (@53) probably best explains my criticism of the alleged “Magnificat” quote that Grace offered up (@16):

    At the very least, the quote you offered (@16) is a piecemeal quote that should have ellipses in it, but doesn’t. But I can’t even find most of it in Luther’s explanation of the Magnificat.

    Possibly. The problem, I’ve found, in some of these Luther quotes that float around, is that there are many different sets of Luther’s works, and also translations of same into English. Before 1883 and the 1930s (German and English of Luther’s works), it was a lot more chaotic than it is now. I’ve entered into huge debates about single lines. Almost always it is a variable primary source or translation issue. Occasionally, it is a botched citation, where someone was irresponsible.

    And this is true, though I notice now that the omission of the ellipses (which I still consider to be misrepresentative and shoddy work) is apparently unique to Grace’s sort-of quotation of your citation.

    I will check back to see where that came from originally, and what else I can find out about it.

    Still, it’s true that I can’t find most of what you say is in Luther’s “Magnificat”. Perhaps you can help me out here. As I have already said, I can find the bit about “Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God”, though I have also already shown that this sentence in no way means what Grace would have us believe. What I can’t find are the preceeding two bits:

    One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace … Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.

    I’ll do some further research and see what i can find out. I’m sure I can find where I got the quote. Then if there is a problem, it would be in that person’s work. If I made a mistake, I’ll be happy to publicly retract it.

    I’ve already pointed to the place I’m reading Luther’s “Magnificat”, which, though poorly formatted, is itself taken from Muhlenberg Press’ Works of Martin Luther. I have searched and searched that online version, and I can’t find any quotes similar to those bits above which were in your original article.

    Okay; well I think it is fun to go on these little “detective” searches. I enjoy it. Google Books and Internet Archive make it easy to do.

    You seem to say that this quote (again, a piecemeal collection from “Magnificat”) “probably came from Grisar, too, though I’d have to check back on that.” Could you? Because, while I’m fully ready to believe that the online source I’m browsing isn’t perfect, it is all I have to go off at this point.

    Will do.

    As to your Immaculate Conception quote, I do not believe I addressed either you or your research.

    I think you can see that that has a solid pedigree of documentation.
    I think many comments here were mocking the very notion that Luther might have thought Mary was sinless at any point of her life. But he did hold that in some sense. Luther and early Lutherans even still discussed Mary’s Assumption, though in a sub-dogmatic or optional sense. But they did, and they sure don’t do so now very often, do they? This is why I find history of doctrine an intriguing and fascinating study.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    {continued}

    That said, my comment (@53) probably best explains my criticism of the alleged “Magnificat” quote that Grace offered up (@16):

    At the very least, the quote you offered (@16) is a piecemeal quote that should have ellipses in it, but doesn’t. But I can’t even find most of it in Luther’s explanation of the Magnificat.

    Possibly. The problem, I’ve found, in some of these Luther quotes that float around, is that there are many different sets of Luther’s works, and also translations of same into English. Before 1883 and the 1930s (German and English of Luther’s works), it was a lot more chaotic than it is now. I’ve entered into huge debates about single lines. Almost always it is a variable primary source or translation issue. Occasionally, it is a botched citation, where someone was irresponsible.

    And this is true, though I notice now that the omission of the ellipses (which I still consider to be misrepresentative and shoddy work) is apparently unique to Grace’s sort-of quotation of your citation.

    I will check back to see where that came from originally, and what else I can find out about it.

    Still, it’s true that I can’t find most of what you say is in Luther’s “Magnificat”. Perhaps you can help me out here. As I have already said, I can find the bit about “Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God”, though I have also already shown that this sentence in no way means what Grace would have us believe. What I can’t find are the preceeding two bits:

    One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace … Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.

    I’ll do some further research and see what i can find out. I’m sure I can find where I got the quote. Then if there is a problem, it would be in that person’s work. If I made a mistake, I’ll be happy to publicly retract it.

    I’ve already pointed to the place I’m reading Luther’s “Magnificat”, which, though poorly formatted, is itself taken from Muhlenberg Press’ Works of Martin Luther. I have searched and searched that online version, and I can’t find any quotes similar to those bits above which were in your original article.

    Okay; well I think it is fun to go on these little “detective” searches. I enjoy it. Google Books and Internet Archive make it easy to do.

    You seem to say that this quote (again, a piecemeal collection from “Magnificat”) “probably came from Grisar, too, though I’d have to check back on that.” Could you? Because, while I’m fully ready to believe that the online source I’m browsing isn’t perfect, it is all I have to go off at this point.

    Will do.

    As to your Immaculate Conception quote, I do not believe I addressed either you or your research.

    I think you can see that that has a solid pedigree of documentation.
    I think many comments here were mocking the very notion that Luther might have thought Mary was sinless at any point of her life. But he did hold that in some sense. Luther and early Lutherans even still discussed Mary’s Assumption, though in a sub-dogmatic or optional sense. But they did, and they sure don’t do so now very often, do they? This is why I find history of doctrine an intriguing and fascinating study.

  • kerner

    Dave Armstrong:

    Apparently, I am too inept at internet posting to comment on your blog. But I tried to post this:

    You might print the apologies, responses, retractions and/or modifications that tODD and Dan posted in response to your protestations on Cranach. I’m not sure they were ultimately as unfair to you as you imply here.

    Dan also said this, “So the comment was directed at you, grace, and I admit now that it was uncalled for. I apologize to you both, and like Augustine offer a “retraction” ”

    and this, “the issue under discussion on this thread was not your work, but citations. Your research was apparently being cited, without giving credit to you, in a way that made it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to find the specific quotes cited. This is not your fault, but your name was brought up here as the apparent source of research that was being laid down as original by someone else. Even so, you have cleared that up to a large degree by revealing that you, in turn, were quoting another author’s research. ”

    And tODD said this, “But, like I said, your article on CatholicCulture.org was in the first three results I found, and I included it without much noticing that you actually included explanatory comments along with the Luther quotes. I certainly had no idea that yours was (apparently) the source for all those other slapdash websites. So for including you in my links, I apologize.”

    I don’t blame you for being irritated in the first instance, but give Give tODD and Dan their due.

    You might give it some thought.

  • kerner

    Dave Armstrong:

    Apparently, I am too inept at internet posting to comment on your blog. But I tried to post this:

    You might print the apologies, responses, retractions and/or modifications that tODD and Dan posted in response to your protestations on Cranach. I’m not sure they were ultimately as unfair to you as you imply here.

    Dan also said this, “So the comment was directed at you, grace, and I admit now that it was uncalled for. I apologize to you both, and like Augustine offer a “retraction” ”

    and this, “the issue under discussion on this thread was not your work, but citations. Your research was apparently being cited, without giving credit to you, in a way that made it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to find the specific quotes cited. This is not your fault, but your name was brought up here as the apparent source of research that was being laid down as original by someone else. Even so, you have cleared that up to a large degree by revealing that you, in turn, were quoting another author’s research. ”

    And tODD said this, “But, like I said, your article on CatholicCulture.org was in the first three results I found, and I included it without much noticing that you actually included explanatory comments along with the Luther quotes. I certainly had no idea that yours was (apparently) the source for all those other slapdash websites. So for including you in my links, I apologize.”

    I don’t blame you for being irritated in the first instance, but give Give tODD and Dan their due.

    You might give it some thought.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi kerner,

    Yes, I think we are making good progress and having a constructive discussion now. I’m in the process of replying to all comments made here today. Then I will post them and my replies in my paper, so all clarifications, apologies, etc., will be included in that. I do greatly appreciate the thoughtful replies, including your own.

    I also changed the title of my blog paper to make it less polemical and more neutral. :-) So I am quite flexible myself in these matters, and love to find common ground wherever I can. I’m delighted at the present discussion and the irenic tone that is dominating it.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi kerner,

    Yes, I think we are making good progress and having a constructive discussion now. I’m in the process of replying to all comments made here today. Then I will post them and my replies in my paper, so all clarifications, apologies, etc., will be included in that. I do greatly appreciate the thoughtful replies, including your own.

    I also changed the title of my blog paper to make it less polemical and more neutral. :-) So I am quite flexible myself in these matters, and love to find common ground wherever I can. I’m delighted at the present discussion and the irenic tone that is dominating it.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dan,

    And now Dave Armstrong is here to comment! Truly the internet is a wondrous place. I’m glad I checked back, as I almost missed it.

    Yes, it is a wonder that a “papist” (your term) is allowed to comment and is actually approached as a human being rather than some kind of mindless imbecilic idolater (as is the case on countless anti-Catholic sites: usually Reformed; not Lutheran).

    First, Dave, I want to thank you for checking in here personally. My opinion of you has risen significantly, since I value debate between those who disagree more than the echo chamber debate of “yeah, that’s right.”

    Cool! My pleasure. I am a great lover of true dialogue as well. I have more than 650 of them posted on my site.

    Next, let me own up to my own comment. I believe I evaluated you as a “shameless” Roman Catholic author. (#58) I’m not sure you would disagree with that. I rather suspect you would take it as a compliment. Let me acknowledge here that I am a shameless lutheran.

    Fair enough, if it was intended in that non-objectionable sense.

    More to the point, though, the issue under discussion on this thread was not your work, but citations. Your research was apparently being cited, without giving credit to you, in a way that made it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to find the specific quotes cited. This is not your fault, but your name was brought up here as the apparent source of research that was being laid down as original by someone else. Even so, you have cleared that up to a large degree by revealing that you, in turn, were quoting another author’s research.

    Duly noted. I think proper attribution ought to be given to any citation, and I object as much as you do, when it is not done, because (in this case) I am implicated because I originally introduced these Luther quotes to the Internet.

    For clearing that up and for the other citations, we are thankful. I would enjoy the further opportunity to exchange with you directly and thus avoid the opportunity to “misrepresent” one another.

    I think that would be helpful, yes, and even enjoyable, if the present pleasant “tone” is continued.

    Finally, I understand that you are from the Detroit area. Congratulations on a pretty good day in professional sports yesterday.

    Yes! As my luck would have it, I watched the whole first half of the Lions game, and they were doing nothing, so I gave up, figuring that the Cowboys’ defense was dominating. Sure enough, they came back and won. I joke about, every time I watch something, the team loses, so when I split the Lions immediately started scoring. LOL Ironically, basketball is my favorite sport to watch, and the Pistons now stink. A good Lions team is almost unfathomable. It’ll take a while to sink in. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dan,

    And now Dave Armstrong is here to comment! Truly the internet is a wondrous place. I’m glad I checked back, as I almost missed it.

    Yes, it is a wonder that a “papist” (your term) is allowed to comment and is actually approached as a human being rather than some kind of mindless imbecilic idolater (as is the case on countless anti-Catholic sites: usually Reformed; not Lutheran).

    First, Dave, I want to thank you for checking in here personally. My opinion of you has risen significantly, since I value debate between those who disagree more than the echo chamber debate of “yeah, that’s right.”

    Cool! My pleasure. I am a great lover of true dialogue as well. I have more than 650 of them posted on my site.

    Next, let me own up to my own comment. I believe I evaluated you as a “shameless” Roman Catholic author. (#58) I’m not sure you would disagree with that. I rather suspect you would take it as a compliment. Let me acknowledge here that I am a shameless lutheran.

    Fair enough, if it was intended in that non-objectionable sense.

    More to the point, though, the issue under discussion on this thread was not your work, but citations. Your research was apparently being cited, without giving credit to you, in a way that made it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to find the specific quotes cited. This is not your fault, but your name was brought up here as the apparent source of research that was being laid down as original by someone else. Even so, you have cleared that up to a large degree by revealing that you, in turn, were quoting another author’s research.

    Duly noted. I think proper attribution ought to be given to any citation, and I object as much as you do, when it is not done, because (in this case) I am implicated because I originally introduced these Luther quotes to the Internet.

    For clearing that up and for the other citations, we are thankful. I would enjoy the further opportunity to exchange with you directly and thus avoid the opportunity to “misrepresent” one another.

    I think that would be helpful, yes, and even enjoyable, if the present pleasant “tone” is continued.

    Finally, I understand that you are from the Detroit area. Congratulations on a pretty good day in professional sports yesterday.

    Yes! As my luck would have it, I watched the whole first half of the Lions game, and they were doing nothing, so I gave up, figuring that the Cowboys’ defense was dominating. Sure enough, they came back and won. I joke about, every time I watch something, the team loses, so when I split the Lions immediately started scoring. LOL Ironically, basketball is my favorite sport to watch, and the Pistons now stink. A good Lions team is almost unfathomable. It’ll take a while to sink in. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dan,

    As an afterthought, I suppose I should also own up to the word “slander” that appears in my post #58. As I re-read, I may have given the impression that I was accusing you of slandering Luther. Not necessarily. (In all fairness, we have not had the debate.)

    I was pointing out the irony that commenter “grace,” rather anti-Catholic in her sentiments, was using a very Catholic source for her research. (Anonymously, of course.)

    Yes; your exact words were: “It is ironic that she joins forces with a papist in the goal of slandering Luther.” If indeed she is anti-Catholic (meaning, she doesn’t think Catholicism is a Christian system, that teaches a saving theology), it would be very ironic. But then, Lutherans are notorious for downplaying aspects of Luther that appear too “Catholic” or objectionable to them (many of Luther’s works in German remain untranslated to this day; there is now an “official” effort to bring more of those out), so it makes sense that these would tend to be found on Catholic sites, since we have no compulsion or self-interested motivation to “hide” anything to be found in Luther.

    If Grace is trying to make out that Luther was some goofball, the irony I see is that all Protestants are derived from Luther in the sense of being “contra-Catholic” and believing in certain bedrock tenets: sola Scriptura (I just completed a second book on that topic), sola fide, private judgment, a non-infallible Church, frowning on apostolic tradition and succession, two sacraments rather than seven, etc. She is as much a child of Luther as any Lutheran, in the sense of historic descent. She just happens to be in a different branch of Protestantism.

    So the comment was directed at you, grace, and I admit now that it was uncalled for. I apologize to you both, and like Augustine offer a “retraction” of the word “slander.

    I gratefully accept the apology. Thank you.

    I instead use the phrase “wilfully intractable” to describe grace’s insistence on proclaiming what lutherans believe, to the consternation of the actual lutherans trying to correct her.

    If she did that, I can see why it would be annoying. We Catholics are constantly confronted with Protestant apologists who are absolutely convinced that they know what our Church teaches even better than apologists like myself who have been defending the Catholic Church full-time for almost ten years, and altogether for now 21 years.

    I can perceive full well when someone is uninformed or underinformed, when they encroach upon an area of my relative expertise (playing on “my turf,” so to speak), but if they can’t see it, little can be done, and it is intensely frustrating; so I perfectly understand that outlook, if it is happening to you as Lutherans.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dan,

    As an afterthought, I suppose I should also own up to the word “slander” that appears in my post #58. As I re-read, I may have given the impression that I was accusing you of slandering Luther. Not necessarily. (In all fairness, we have not had the debate.)

    I was pointing out the irony that commenter “grace,” rather anti-Catholic in her sentiments, was using a very Catholic source for her research. (Anonymously, of course.)

    Yes; your exact words were: “It is ironic that she joins forces with a papist in the goal of slandering Luther.” If indeed she is anti-Catholic (meaning, she doesn’t think Catholicism is a Christian system, that teaches a saving theology), it would be very ironic. But then, Lutherans are notorious for downplaying aspects of Luther that appear too “Catholic” or objectionable to them (many of Luther’s works in German remain untranslated to this day; there is now an “official” effort to bring more of those out), so it makes sense that these would tend to be found on Catholic sites, since we have no compulsion or self-interested motivation to “hide” anything to be found in Luther.

    If Grace is trying to make out that Luther was some goofball, the irony I see is that all Protestants are derived from Luther in the sense of being “contra-Catholic” and believing in certain bedrock tenets: sola Scriptura (I just completed a second book on that topic), sola fide, private judgment, a non-infallible Church, frowning on apostolic tradition and succession, two sacraments rather than seven, etc. She is as much a child of Luther as any Lutheran, in the sense of historic descent. She just happens to be in a different branch of Protestantism.

    So the comment was directed at you, grace, and I admit now that it was uncalled for. I apologize to you both, and like Augustine offer a “retraction” of the word “slander.

    I gratefully accept the apology. Thank you.

    I instead use the phrase “wilfully intractable” to describe grace’s insistence on proclaiming what lutherans believe, to the consternation of the actual lutherans trying to correct her.

    If she did that, I can see why it would be annoying. We Catholics are constantly confronted with Protestant apologists who are absolutely convinced that they know what our Church teaches even better than apologists like myself who have been defending the Catholic Church full-time for almost ten years, and altogether for now 21 years.

    I can perceive full well when someone is uninformed or underinformed, when they encroach upon an area of my relative expertise (playing on “my turf,” so to speak), but if they can’t see it, little can be done, and it is intensely frustrating; so I perfectly understand that outlook, if it is happening to you as Lutherans.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I will proceed now (right after I eat lunch) to check out the quote from the Magnificat; see what I can find. I’ll report the results here.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I will proceed now (right after I eat lunch) to check out the quote from the Magnificat; see what I can find. I’ll report the results here.

  • Tom Hering

    “Then you need to get a life …” Dave Armstrong @ 116.

    Got one, and I’m happy with it. But thanks for the advice anyways.

    “… I’m trying to have a rational discussion. I think it is possible with some here; probably not with you …”

    I promise I’ll do my best to live down to your expectation. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    “Then you need to get a life …” Dave Armstrong @ 116.

    Got one, and I’m happy with it. But thanks for the advice anyways.

    “… I’m trying to have a rational discussion. I think it is possible with some here; probably not with you …”

    I promise I’ll do my best to live down to your expectation. :-D

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I’m having unexpected difficulty tracking down the “Luther commenting on the Magnificat” citation, as I used it (from someone else). It doesn’t seem to be in Grisar (six-volume biography, Luther, or Patrick O’Hare (The Facts About Luther), or Janssen (History of the German People): three sources I often used in my Luther research in the early 90s (before I was even on the Internet; I had the O’Hare book and the other two sources were selectively photocopied from libraries).

    I have mentioned that I no longer have this quote on my blog, to my knowledge. That was mistaken. I do have a copy of it, linked off of my Literary Resume page, because it was a twice-published article (Hands On Apologetics, Nov/Dec 1994, 20-23, 26 / The Coming Home Journal, January-March 1998, 12-13 ). I removed it, however, from my Luther and Lutheranism web page, because it was not fully documented research. That happened somewhere between Nov. 2007 and 24 May 2008: at which time the paper is no longer listed there, according to Internet Archive:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080524212847/http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-lutheranism-index-page.html

    I have at least verified that ellipses were present in the paper on my website. Grace’s citation from who knows where (#16 above), doesn’t have them, and reads:

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace. Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.”

    In this form, it’s a botched citation (and Todd was right about that), because it runs together sentences that were originally separated. My citation, as used first in 1994, has two sections with ellipses:

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.”

    Anyone can verify this by checking out the Internet Archive scan of the paper from 5 December 1998: close to the time it was first posted online:

    http://web.archive.org/web/19981205214613/http://ic.net/%7Eerasmus/RAZ95.HTM

    Also, the version posted at the Catholic Culture website is identical (i.e., with the ellipses):

    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=788

    And it is the same in the paper now present on my blog. Therefore, someone took the ellipses out later on, and that had nothing to do with my original (that I am having trouble finding the secondary or primary source for). That is indeed shoddy research, and rather inexcusable.

    The version from the Philadelphia edition of the early 30s (available online; I think Todd found this, too) reads as follows for the final clause:

    “What, think you, would please her more than to have you thus come through her to God, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.”

    http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_c5.htm

    The previous paragraph also has this “through her” terminology:

    “Hence all those who heap so great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her, as though she were concerned that men should honor her and look to her for good things, when in truth she thrusts this from her, and would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace. ”

    Interestingly, the Lutheran editor writes in his Introduction:

    “Although Luther regards her in one place as sinless, and invokes her aid and intercession at the beginning and close of his work, these are isolated instances; the whole tenor of the exposition is evangelical, and as far removed from the Mariolatry of Rome as from an ultra-protestant depreciation of the Mother of our Lord. ”

    I looked but couldn’t find what he was referring to. But we can be assured something to the effect was present, if a Lutheran scholar was fair-minded enough to admit it. :-)

    I shall look trough the online text to see what might match up with the rest of “my” citation.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I’m having unexpected difficulty tracking down the “Luther commenting on the Magnificat” citation, as I used it (from someone else). It doesn’t seem to be in Grisar (six-volume biography, Luther, or Patrick O’Hare (The Facts About Luther), or Janssen (History of the German People): three sources I often used in my Luther research in the early 90s (before I was even on the Internet; I had the O’Hare book and the other two sources were selectively photocopied from libraries).

    I have mentioned that I no longer have this quote on my blog, to my knowledge. That was mistaken. I do have a copy of it, linked off of my Literary Resume page, because it was a twice-published article (Hands On Apologetics, Nov/Dec 1994, 20-23, 26 / The Coming Home Journal, January-March 1998, 12-13 ). I removed it, however, from my Luther and Lutheranism web page, because it was not fully documented research. That happened somewhere between Nov. 2007 and 24 May 2008: at which time the paper is no longer listed there, according to Internet Archive:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080524212847/http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-lutheranism-index-page.html

    I have at least verified that ellipses were present in the paper on my website. Grace’s citation from who knows where (#16 above), doesn’t have them, and reads:

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace. Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.”

    In this form, it’s a botched citation (and Todd was right about that), because it runs together sentences that were originally separated. My citation, as used first in 1994, has two sections with ellipses:

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.”

    Anyone can verify this by checking out the Internet Archive scan of the paper from 5 December 1998: close to the time it was first posted online:

    http://web.archive.org/web/19981205214613/http://ic.net/%7Eerasmus/RAZ95.HTM

    Also, the version posted at the Catholic Culture website is identical (i.e., with the ellipses):

    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=788

    And it is the same in the paper now present on my blog. Therefore, someone took the ellipses out later on, and that had nothing to do with my original (that I am having trouble finding the secondary or primary source for). That is indeed shoddy research, and rather inexcusable.

    The version from the Philadelphia edition of the early 30s (available online; I think Todd found this, too) reads as follows for the final clause:

    “What, think you, would please her more than to have you thus come through her to God, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.”

    http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_c5.htm

    The previous paragraph also has this “through her” terminology:

    “Hence all those who heap so great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her, as though she were concerned that men should honor her and look to her for good things, when in truth she thrusts this from her, and would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace. ”

    Interestingly, the Lutheran editor writes in his Introduction:

    “Although Luther regards her in one place as sinless, and invokes her aid and intercession at the beginning and close of his work, these are isolated instances; the whole tenor of the exposition is evangelical, and as far removed from the Mariolatry of Rome as from an ultra-protestant depreciation of the Mother of our Lord. ”

    I looked but couldn’t find what he was referring to. But we can be assured something to the effect was present, if a Lutheran scholar was fair-minded enough to admit it. :-)

    I shall look trough the online text to see what might match up with the rest of “my” citation.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    It looks more and more like this will come down to different editions of Luther’s Works, and not deliberate textual mischief (apart from the ellipses issue, that was messing with the text used (wherever it came from).

    There are several German sets of Luther’s writings, and there are Latin and German versions of original primary texts, and sometimes revisions from Luther himself. Then there are various English translations, and not just the sets from the 1930s (Philadelphia) and 1955 (Pelikan et al, 55 volumes). Scholars writing in English cite portions, too; usually from Weimar (1883).

    If, e.g., my citation were from Grisar, it would be an English translation of his German, that was in turn drawn from a Luther primary source (from one of the several sets; Grisar uses more than one) that may have been in either German or Latin. These factors can easily account for variations. I know this to be the case for sure because I have engaged in several intense debates about short Luther texts. All kinds of things are possible, text-wise.

    No one even need take my word for it. Albert T. W. Steinhaeuser, the translator, wrote at the end of his Introduction (my italics and bolding):

    “The treatise is found in Clemen, 2, 133-187; Weimar, 7:583-604; Erlangen, 45:211-290; Berlin, 6:161-248; Walch, 7:1220-1317; St. Louis, 7:1372- 1445. For a list of the early editions the student must go to the Weimar Edition, 7:540 ff. The only other English translation known to us is one published by James Nicholson in Southwark, in 1538 (Clemen, 2:138), which we have not been able to see. Lonicer prepared a Latin translation (Martin Lutheri super Magnificat commentarii nuper e vernacula in latinurm versi a Jobanne Lonicero, Strassburg, 1525), which is of value in throwing light on several textual difficulties. The gradual growth of the treatise, as well as a short summary of its contents, may be traced in Kostlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther, 5. ed., 1:368, 374 f., 401 f., 445 f. ”

    http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_c5.htm

    So that is six versions from German sets, before we even get to English. They will not be identical. Therefore, folks can quote different ones, and they will sometimes seem like different quotes, or deliberately modified ones.

    I happen to have a hard copy of Works of Martin Luther, Vol. III (Philadelphia: 1930) in my own extensive Luther library, and so can locate some things that are not as easily found in the online version. She is described by Luther as sinless on p. 161 (my bolding):

    “Mary also freely ascribes all to God’s grace, not to her merit. For though she was without sin, yet that grace was too surpassing great for her to deserve it in any way. How should a creature deserve to become the Mother of God!”

    Three places are noted, where Luther asked for or mentioned Mary’s invocation and/or intercession (my bolding):

    “May the tender Mother of God herself procure for me the spirit of wisdom, profitably and thoroughly to expound this song of hers, so that your Grace as well as we all may draw therefrom wholesome knowledge and a praiseworthy life, and thus come to chant and sing this Magnificat eternally in heaven. ” (p. 125)

    “That is why I said Mary does not desire to be an idol; she does nothing, God does all. We ought to call upon her, that for her sake God may grant and do what we request. Thus also all other saints are to be invoked, so that the work may be every way God’s alone.” (p. 164)

    Very Catholic! Luther understands biblical paradox: God does all; at the same time (without contradiction) He uses us to do it.

    “We pray God to give us a right understanding of this Magnificat, an understanding that consists not merely in brilliant words, but I glowing life in body and soul. May Christ grant us this through the intercession and for the sake of His dear Mother Mary. Amen.” (p. 198)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    It looks more and more like this will come down to different editions of Luther’s Works, and not deliberate textual mischief (apart from the ellipses issue, that was messing with the text used (wherever it came from).

    There are several German sets of Luther’s writings, and there are Latin and German versions of original primary texts, and sometimes revisions from Luther himself. Then there are various English translations, and not just the sets from the 1930s (Philadelphia) and 1955 (Pelikan et al, 55 volumes). Scholars writing in English cite portions, too; usually from Weimar (1883).

    If, e.g., my citation were from Grisar, it would be an English translation of his German, that was in turn drawn from a Luther primary source (from one of the several sets; Grisar uses more than one) that may have been in either German or Latin. These factors can easily account for variations. I know this to be the case for sure because I have engaged in several intense debates about short Luther texts. All kinds of things are possible, text-wise.

    No one even need take my word for it. Albert T. W. Steinhaeuser, the translator, wrote at the end of his Introduction (my italics and bolding):

    “The treatise is found in Clemen, 2, 133-187; Weimar, 7:583-604; Erlangen, 45:211-290; Berlin, 6:161-248; Walch, 7:1220-1317; St. Louis, 7:1372- 1445. For a list of the early editions the student must go to the Weimar Edition, 7:540 ff. The only other English translation known to us is one published by James Nicholson in Southwark, in 1538 (Clemen, 2:138), which we have not been able to see. Lonicer prepared a Latin translation (Martin Lutheri super Magnificat commentarii nuper e vernacula in latinurm versi a Jobanne Lonicero, Strassburg, 1525), which is of value in throwing light on several textual difficulties. The gradual growth of the treatise, as well as a short summary of its contents, may be traced in Kostlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther, 5. ed., 1:368, 374 f., 401 f., 445 f. ”

    http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_c5.htm

    So that is six versions from German sets, before we even get to English. They will not be identical. Therefore, folks can quote different ones, and they will sometimes seem like different quotes, or deliberately modified ones.

    I happen to have a hard copy of Works of Martin Luther, Vol. III (Philadelphia: 1930) in my own extensive Luther library, and so can locate some things that are not as easily found in the online version. She is described by Luther as sinless on p. 161 (my bolding):

    “Mary also freely ascribes all to God’s grace, not to her merit. For though she was without sin, yet that grace was too surpassing great for her to deserve it in any way. How should a creature deserve to become the Mother of God!”

    Three places are noted, where Luther asked for or mentioned Mary’s invocation and/or intercession (my bolding):

    “May the tender Mother of God herself procure for me the spirit of wisdom, profitably and thoroughly to expound this song of hers, so that your Grace as well as we all may draw therefrom wholesome knowledge and a praiseworthy life, and thus come to chant and sing this Magnificat eternally in heaven. ” (p. 125)

    “That is why I said Mary does not desire to be an idol; she does nothing, God does all. We ought to call upon her, that for her sake God may grant and do what we request. Thus also all other saints are to be invoked, so that the work may be every way God’s alone.” (p. 164)

    Very Catholic! Luther understands biblical paradox: God does all; at the same time (without contradiction) He uses us to do it.

    “We pray God to give us a right understanding of this Magnificat, an understanding that consists not merely in brilliant words, but I glowing life in body and soul. May Christ grant us this through the intercession and for the sake of His dear Mother Mary. Amen.” (p. 198)

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace.Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.”

    See LW 21:322 for “She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.” The other lines previous appear to be from different parts of Luther’s exposition on the Magnificat, pieced together. I don’t have time at the moment to look for the other lines.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace.Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.”

    See LW 21:322 for “She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.” The other lines previous appear to be from different parts of Luther’s exposition on the Magnificat, pieced together. I don’t have time at the moment to look for the other lines.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Therefore, Luther at this time believed in the invocation and intercession of the saints, including Mary. This writing (so says Steinhaeuser) was completed by 10 June 1521 and published in late August or early September 1521.

    Later, Luther changed his view on those things, but he still believed them as late as after the Diet of Worms, which ran from 28 January to 25 May 1521.

    And how many Lutherans would have known that? I dare say, not one in a hundred (if that), including many (if not most) reading this very combox. But there it is, right in a June 1521 treatise. I haven’t even noted this before, myself, but I certainly will now. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Therefore, Luther at this time believed in the invocation and intercession of the saints, including Mary. This writing (so says Steinhaeuser) was completed by 10 June 1521 and published in late August or early September 1521.

    Later, Luther changed his view on those things, but he still believed them as late as after the Diet of Worms, which ran from 28 January to 25 May 1521.

    And how many Lutherans would have known that? I dare say, not one in a hundred (if that), including many (if not most) reading this very combox. But there it is, right in a June 1521 treatise. I haven’t even noted this before, myself, but I certainly will now. :-)

  • Grace

    James Swan,

    Thank you for coming on Veith’s blog. I hope, and encourage you to stay, and continue contributing in this discussion.

    Very interesting indeed!

  • Grace

    James Swan,

    Thank you for coming on Veith’s blog. I hope, and encourage you to stay, and continue contributing in this discussion.

    Very interesting indeed!

  • Tom Hering

    I’d be interested to hear what an RC apologist has to say about the original topic, i.e., the Pope on Luther. Reading 18 comments in which an RC apologist mostly talks about himself as a researcher – not so much.

  • Tom Hering

    I’d be interested to hear what an RC apologist has to say about the original topic, i.e., the Pope on Luther. Reading 18 comments in which an RC apologist mostly talks about himself as a researcher – not so much.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I have to wonder what the point is, most educated Lutherans know Luther wrote a lot and some of which, particularly early works, are very RCC sounding.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I have to wonder what the point is, most educated Lutherans know Luther wrote a lot and some of which, particularly early works, are very RCC sounding.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave Armstrong,

    You have impressed me further by your willingness to double check and correct your sources. This conversation has been a pleasant surprise for me, as well.

    Just to save you a bit of unnecessary persuasion, you will find that there are quite a few knowledgable Luther scholars hanging around here, and that they (we) are well aware that there are instances in which Luther refers to Mary in a very “Catholic” manner. He was a monk, after all, and it took quite a while for the implications of justification by grace through faith in Christ alone to permeate his theology. Yes, quite a bit after Worms. (Though I am impressed that you know this and acknowledge that these statements do not negate his later and fuller understanding.)

    The erstwhile debate here has centered on the fact that lutherans do not bind themselves to anything and everything Luther ever said. And you might find a surprising, perhaps refreshing, openness here to discuss what he might have said frankly and honestly.

    With regard to the luther quotes, if you and others here are truly interested in tracking them down, I would suggest contacting the reference department at the library of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. They have access to all editions of Luthers work, and their collection of Luther scholarship is the biggest on this side of the Atlantic. You are quite right that much of Luther’s works remains untranslated into English, and I’m sure you would find the reference librarians very willing to help you navigate to the citation you are seeking.

    Of course, you may feel like I do when I visit Catholic collections and ask the librarians to help me index the church fathers, but I’m sure you will find the lutheran librarians as accomodating as I have found the “papistic” ones. :)

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave Armstrong,

    You have impressed me further by your willingness to double check and correct your sources. This conversation has been a pleasant surprise for me, as well.

    Just to save you a bit of unnecessary persuasion, you will find that there are quite a few knowledgable Luther scholars hanging around here, and that they (we) are well aware that there are instances in which Luther refers to Mary in a very “Catholic” manner. He was a monk, after all, and it took quite a while for the implications of justification by grace through faith in Christ alone to permeate his theology. Yes, quite a bit after Worms. (Though I am impressed that you know this and acknowledge that these statements do not negate his later and fuller understanding.)

    The erstwhile debate here has centered on the fact that lutherans do not bind themselves to anything and everything Luther ever said. And you might find a surprising, perhaps refreshing, openness here to discuss what he might have said frankly and honestly.

    With regard to the luther quotes, if you and others here are truly interested in tracking them down, I would suggest contacting the reference department at the library of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. They have access to all editions of Luthers work, and their collection of Luther scholarship is the biggest on this side of the Atlantic. You are quite right that much of Luther’s works remains untranslated into English, and I’m sure you would find the reference librarians very willing to help you navigate to the citation you are seeking.

    Of course, you may feel like I do when I visit Catholic collections and ask the librarians to help me index the church fathers, but I’m sure you will find the lutheran librarians as accomodating as I have found the “papistic” ones. :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@127), just for the record, I think you’ve so far duplicated my own (amateur) sleuthing into the matter.

    Not being an actual Luther scholar, I don’t own a copy of Luther’s works in any collection larger than the Book of Concord (which, you know, doesn’t contain his treatise on the Magnificat). There does not appear to be a definitive answer to this question online. I’ve given it a fairly extensive go, and that’s my conclusion.

    I mean, have a go yourself at the translation available at GodRules.net. I did some spot-checking of that version against the Muhlenberg Press text (which is searchable, but only sort of, through Google Books), and they seem to be identical. Perhaps you’ll do a better job than I of discovering “what might match up with the rest of [your] citation”, but I tried searching for an awful lot of potentially unique segments from your citation (as well as possible variations that might have resulted from varying translations), and I could, again, only find the “through her to God” sentence, which is, by now, fairly well established.

    As to the (less important) question of the disappearing ellipses, it would appear that their omission is a unique editorial addition from Grace herself. Or so I have concluded after a fairly thorough search via Google of uses of this quote. Every result that Google reports contains the ellipses, the only exceptions being Grace’s quotations on this blog, and your quotations of her on yours.
    Oddly, a year ago, Grace had posted this same quote on this blog (you see how long she’s been at it) in an attempt to make a point about Luther/Lutherans believing in Mary as mediatrix (which you’ve denied), but with the correct ellipses. So we should probably mark their omission as merely sloppy on her part.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@127), just for the record, I think you’ve so far duplicated my own (amateur) sleuthing into the matter.

    Not being an actual Luther scholar, I don’t own a copy of Luther’s works in any collection larger than the Book of Concord (which, you know, doesn’t contain his treatise on the Magnificat). There does not appear to be a definitive answer to this question online. I’ve given it a fairly extensive go, and that’s my conclusion.

    I mean, have a go yourself at the translation available at GodRules.net. I did some spot-checking of that version against the Muhlenberg Press text (which is searchable, but only sort of, through Google Books), and they seem to be identical. Perhaps you’ll do a better job than I of discovering “what might match up with the rest of [your] citation”, but I tried searching for an awful lot of potentially unique segments from your citation (as well as possible variations that might have resulted from varying translations), and I could, again, only find the “through her to God” sentence, which is, by now, fairly well established.

    As to the (less important) question of the disappearing ellipses, it would appear that their omission is a unique editorial addition from Grace herself. Or so I have concluded after a fairly thorough search via Google of uses of this quote. Every result that Google reports contains the ellipses, the only exceptions being Grace’s quotations on this blog, and your quotations of her on yours.
    Oddly, a year ago, Grace had posted this same quote on this blog (you see how long she’s been at it) in an attempt to make a point about Luther/Lutherans believing in Mary as mediatrix (which you’ve denied), but with the correct ellipses. So we should probably mark their omission as merely sloppy on her part.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And, though several others have already made this point as well (@133, 134), like many an informed Lutheran, I don’t particularly care, per se, what Luther may have written or believed at any particular time — at least, as far as my Lutheranism is concerned.

    Because, to belabor the point (I do this mainly for Grace), Lutherans don’t subscribe to everything that Luther ever wrote, and what they do officially subscribe to was mostly not written by Luther.

    Now, of course, there are reasons to be interested in what he wrote, whether it be to seek insight into what Lutherans do confess, to track the changes in his beliefs over time (as you appear to have done), or merely to correct the record when a contextless quote is being abused into saying something seemingly spurious, especially with an apparent eye towards making a point about modern-day believers.

    You can imagine which of these potential motives interests me.

    Luther wrote some things towards the end of his life that every modern-day Lutheran I’ve ever met repudiates. I wouldn’t be surprised to find the same from the beginning of his lengthy writing career, as well.

    That said, I do hope to get this particular quote (the Magnificat one) resolved, now that I’ve sunk as much time into looking into it as I have.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And, though several others have already made this point as well (@133, 134), like many an informed Lutheran, I don’t particularly care, per se, what Luther may have written or believed at any particular time — at least, as far as my Lutheranism is concerned.

    Because, to belabor the point (I do this mainly for Grace), Lutherans don’t subscribe to everything that Luther ever wrote, and what they do officially subscribe to was mostly not written by Luther.

    Now, of course, there are reasons to be interested in what he wrote, whether it be to seek insight into what Lutherans do confess, to track the changes in his beliefs over time (as you appear to have done), or merely to correct the record when a contextless quote is being abused into saying something seemingly spurious, especially with an apparent eye towards making a point about modern-day believers.

    You can imagine which of these potential motives interests me.

    Luther wrote some things towards the end of his life that every modern-day Lutheran I’ve ever met repudiates. I wouldn’t be surprised to find the same from the beginning of his lengthy writing career, as well.

    That said, I do hope to get this particular quote (the Magnificat one) resolved, now that I’ve sunk as much time into looking into it as I have.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I would note that every concept in the citation that I used is present in Luther, here or elsewhere. We may quibble about texts till kingdom come, and I have given my opinion on the difficulties there, but my task and point as a Catholic apologist and student of Church history and the “Reformation” (so-called), studying the history of Luther’s beliefs (particularly on Mariology), is to establish through historical and textual research
    what he believed about certain things at certain times.

    We have already figured out that the last clause in my citation is from this Commentary on the Magnificat. I would like to submit that most of the rest is in there, too, and that it is a matter of variations. Here is my citation, minus the last part that has been sufficiently verified:

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . .”

    Now, note the following passage, from Steinhaeuser (1930):

    But she does take it amiss that the vain chatterers preach and write so many things about her merits. They are set on proving their own skill, and fail to see how they spoil the Magnificat, make the Mother of God a liar, and diminish the grace of God. For, in proportion as we ascribe merit and worthiness to her, we lower the grace of God and diminish the truth of the Magnificat. The angel salutes her but as highly favored of God, and because the Lord is with her, wherefore she is blessed among women ( Luke 1:28). Hence all those who heap so great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her, as though she were concerned that men should honor her and look to her for good things, when in truth she thrusts this from her, and would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace.

    Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; he should then marvel at the exceeding abundant grace of God Who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and praise God for His grace, and drawn to look for all good things to Him, Who does not reject but graciously regards poor and despised and lowly mortals. Thus your heart will be strengthened in faith and love and hope. What, think you, would please her more than to have you thus come through her to God, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God. Again, nothing would please her better than to have you turn in fear from all lofty things on which men set their hearts, seeing that even in His mother God neither found nor desired aught of high degree. ”

    Except for the last sentence, which doesn’t seem to be there, everything else is (conceptually), which leads me to believe that it is merely a variant issue. What I have seems to be a shorter, or abridged version of the longer one that was translated in 1930 (probably from the Weimar edition, 1883). In the following couplets, I will present my version, then Steinhaeuser’s (with bolding, italics, and bracketed coding for particular comparisons):

    A1 One should honor Mary as she herself wished and {as she expressed it in the Magnificat}.

    A2 But she does take it amiss that the vain chatterers preach and write so many things about her merits. They are set on proving their own skill, and fail to see how {they spoil the Magnificat}, . . .

    B1 She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her?

    B2 Hence all those who heap so great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her, as though she were concerned that men should honor her and look to her for good things, when in truth she thrusts this from her, and would have us honor God in her . . .

    C1 The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the {praise of God’s grace} . . .

    C2 Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; {he should then marvel at the exceeding abundant grace of God} Who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and {praise God for His grace}, . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I would note that every concept in the citation that I used is present in Luther, here or elsewhere. We may quibble about texts till kingdom come, and I have given my opinion on the difficulties there, but my task and point as a Catholic apologist and student of Church history and the “Reformation” (so-called), studying the history of Luther’s beliefs (particularly on Mariology), is to establish through historical and textual research
    what he believed about certain things at certain times.

    We have already figured out that the last clause in my citation is from this Commentary on the Magnificat. I would like to submit that most of the rest is in there, too, and that it is a matter of variations. Here is my citation, minus the last part that has been sufficiently verified:

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . .”

    Now, note the following passage, from Steinhaeuser (1930):

    But she does take it amiss that the vain chatterers preach and write so many things about her merits. They are set on proving their own skill, and fail to see how they spoil the Magnificat, make the Mother of God a liar, and diminish the grace of God. For, in proportion as we ascribe merit and worthiness to her, we lower the grace of God and diminish the truth of the Magnificat. The angel salutes her but as highly favored of God, and because the Lord is with her, wherefore she is blessed among women ( Luke 1:28). Hence all those who heap so great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her, as though she were concerned that men should honor her and look to her for good things, when in truth she thrusts this from her, and would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace.

    Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; he should then marvel at the exceeding abundant grace of God Who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and praise God for His grace, and drawn to look for all good things to Him, Who does not reject but graciously regards poor and despised and lowly mortals. Thus your heart will be strengthened in faith and love and hope. What, think you, would please her more than to have you thus come through her to God, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God. Again, nothing would please her better than to have you turn in fear from all lofty things on which men set their hearts, seeing that even in His mother God neither found nor desired aught of high degree. ”

    Except for the last sentence, which doesn’t seem to be there, everything else is (conceptually), which leads me to believe that it is merely a variant issue. What I have seems to be a shorter, or abridged version of the longer one that was translated in 1930 (probably from the Weimar edition, 1883). In the following couplets, I will present my version, then Steinhaeuser’s (with bolding, italics, and bracketed coding for particular comparisons):

    A1 One should honor Mary as she herself wished and {as she expressed it in the Magnificat}.

    A2 But she does take it amiss that the vain chatterers preach and write so many things about her merits. They are set on proving their own skill, and fail to see how {they spoil the Magnificat}, . . .

    B1 She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her?

    B2 Hence all those who heap so great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her, as though she were concerned that men should honor her and look to her for good things, when in truth she thrusts this from her, and would have us honor God in her . . .

    C1 The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the {praise of God’s grace} . . .

    C2 Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; {he should then marvel at the exceeding abundant grace of God} Who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and {praise God for His grace}, . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    The final clause (“Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ”) is difficult to find in anything approaching this form (based on a search for “Christ”), but surely very similar sentiments are expressed. For example:

    “. . . must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God . . .” {seen above}

    “She does not desire herself to be esteemed; she magnifies God alone and gives all glory to Him. She leaves herself out, and ascribes everything to God alone, from Whom she received it.”

    “. . . she counted herself alone unworthy of such honor and all others worthy of it.”

    “That is to magnify God alone, to count only Him great and lay claim to nothing.”

    “That is to say, “As I lay no claim to the work, neither do I to the name and fame. For the name and fame belong to Him alone Who does the work. It is not meet that one should do the work, and another have the fame and take the glory. I am but the workshop wherein He performs His work; I had nothing to do with the work itself. None, therefore, should praise me or give me the glory for becoming the Mother of God, but God alone and His work are to be honored and praised in me. It is enough to congratulate me and call me blessed, because God used me and wrought in me His works.” Behold, how completely she traces all to God, lays claim to no works, no honor, no fame. ”

    In other words, even if someone is skeptical of the above speculative textual comparisons, it remains true that in”my” citation, nothing is present which would suggest that Luther believed something (at this time) that he did not in fact believe. He has not been misrepresented in that (conceptual) sense. I still believe it is a genuine citation; just from another edition of his works that has yet to be determined. Failing that, we see all the same sorts of beliefs in the “official” English version of 1930.

    If I had, on the other hand, made an argument like, for example, stating that Luther held to Mary Mediatrix precisely as St. Bernard or St. Alphonsus de Liguori did, this would be false and would truly misrepresent Luther’s Mariology, no matter what text was suggested as proof of it. The present citation, wherever it is from (considered more abstractly, apart from the textual issue that needs to be resolved) does no such thing.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    The final clause (“Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ”) is difficult to find in anything approaching this form (based on a search for “Christ”), but surely very similar sentiments are expressed. For example:

    “. . . must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God . . .” {seen above}

    “She does not desire herself to be esteemed; she magnifies God alone and gives all glory to Him. She leaves herself out, and ascribes everything to God alone, from Whom she received it.”

    “. . . she counted herself alone unworthy of such honor and all others worthy of it.”

    “That is to magnify God alone, to count only Him great and lay claim to nothing.”

    “That is to say, “As I lay no claim to the work, neither do I to the name and fame. For the name and fame belong to Him alone Who does the work. It is not meet that one should do the work, and another have the fame and take the glory. I am but the workshop wherein He performs His work; I had nothing to do with the work itself. None, therefore, should praise me or give me the glory for becoming the Mother of God, but God alone and His work are to be honored and praised in me. It is enough to congratulate me and call me blessed, because God used me and wrought in me His works.” Behold, how completely she traces all to God, lays claim to no works, no honor, no fame. ”

    In other words, even if someone is skeptical of the above speculative textual comparisons, it remains true that in”my” citation, nothing is present which would suggest that Luther believed something (at this time) that he did not in fact believe. He has not been misrepresented in that (conceptual) sense. I still believe it is a genuine citation; just from another edition of his works that has yet to be determined. Failing that, we see all the same sorts of beliefs in the “official” English version of 1930.

    If I had, on the other hand, made an argument like, for example, stating that Luther held to Mary Mediatrix precisely as St. Bernard or St. Alphonsus de Liguori did, this would be false and would truly misrepresent Luther’s Mariology, no matter what text was suggested as proof of it. The present citation, wherever it is from (considered more abstractly, apart from the textual issue that needs to be resolved) does no such thing.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave Armstrong,

    I don’t think anyone is contesting the point you are trying to make, but we lutherans do love to go “Ad Fontes.” As has been stated, the issue was not with the substance of the quote, but with the accuracy of the citation. Lacking the data in secondary sources or on the web, I would involve someone who can track it down in the Weimar edition, which is the definitive critical edition of Luther’s works. Thus the suggestion to the library in St. Louis.

    But, whatever. I’ve got nothing invested in this argument.

    Btw, what is a “combox?”

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave Armstrong,

    I don’t think anyone is contesting the point you are trying to make, but we lutherans do love to go “Ad Fontes.” As has been stated, the issue was not with the substance of the quote, but with the accuracy of the citation. Lacking the data in secondary sources or on the web, I would involve someone who can track it down in the Weimar edition, which is the definitive critical edition of Luther’s works. Thus the suggestion to the library in St. Louis.

    But, whatever. I’ve got nothing invested in this argument.

    Btw, what is a “combox?”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@137, 138), I must admit to being slightly confused as to your purpose, at this point. As you may recall (@101), you burst onto the scene complaining about you and your research being “misrepresented”, and rallying under the banner of “accuracy and truth”.

    Might I, then, be forgiven for thinking that your new standard (@137):

    every concept in the citation that I used is present in Luther, here or elsewhere

    is a little disappointing?

    I mean, I get that your interest is in what Luther believed, over time. And while that isn’t, as such, my interest, I also have no particular issue with your saying that Luther had some ideas about Mary that not only changed over time, but are not terribly common among modern Lutherans.

    But, again, the whole thing that brought you here was about the accuracy of a quote — namely, this one allegedly from the explanation of the Magnificat. As you must know, it is hardly scholarly to say a quote is accurate merely because it sounds like something Luther might have said, or said somewhere else — or at least it is consonant with things that we can all agree he actually did say.

    We may quibble about texts till kingdom come

    Again, this [Magnificat citation] is a quote from you, and you’re standing behind it. I expect a better attitude than that, if you’re going to continue to stake your reputation on this quote. You’ve made this about you, personally, and, as you’ve noted, the quote you produced has gone on to be replicated on many, many other websites that use it as proof of this or that.

    Is the quote accurate? As in, does there actually exist an English translation with those words in it, or even a German one that would produce such a translation?

    This is hardly “quibbling”. You had no problem noting (@127) that the omission of ellipses from your quote was “botched”, “shoddy”, and “rather inexcusable”, though in that case, someone else was at fault. Surely, then, the manufacturing of a quote that is merely accurate at the conceptual level would be even more botched, shoddy, and inexcusable — the very accusations that brought you to this site all in a tizzy!

    Of course, I’m not saying that you did manufacture it. But you are in the awkward position of claiming that you popularized the quote, you stand behind it, and you don’t know where it came from. The ball is definitely in your court on this one.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@137, 138), I must admit to being slightly confused as to your purpose, at this point. As you may recall (@101), you burst onto the scene complaining about you and your research being “misrepresented”, and rallying under the banner of “accuracy and truth”.

    Might I, then, be forgiven for thinking that your new standard (@137):

    every concept in the citation that I used is present in Luther, here or elsewhere

    is a little disappointing?

    I mean, I get that your interest is in what Luther believed, over time. And while that isn’t, as such, my interest, I also have no particular issue with your saying that Luther had some ideas about Mary that not only changed over time, but are not terribly common among modern Lutherans.

    But, again, the whole thing that brought you here was about the accuracy of a quote — namely, this one allegedly from the explanation of the Magnificat. As you must know, it is hardly scholarly to say a quote is accurate merely because it sounds like something Luther might have said, or said somewhere else — or at least it is consonant with things that we can all agree he actually did say.

    We may quibble about texts till kingdom come

    Again, this [Magnificat citation] is a quote from you, and you’re standing behind it. I expect a better attitude than that, if you’re going to continue to stake your reputation on this quote. You’ve made this about you, personally, and, as you’ve noted, the quote you produced has gone on to be replicated on many, many other websites that use it as proof of this or that.

    Is the quote accurate? As in, does there actually exist an English translation with those words in it, or even a German one that would produce such a translation?

    This is hardly “quibbling”. You had no problem noting (@127) that the omission of ellipses from your quote was “botched”, “shoddy”, and “rather inexcusable”, though in that case, someone else was at fault. Surely, then, the manufacturing of a quote that is merely accurate at the conceptual level would be even more botched, shoddy, and inexcusable — the very accusations that brought you to this site all in a tizzy!

    Of course, I’m not saying that you did manufacture it. But you are in the awkward position of claiming that you popularized the quote, you stand behind it, and you don’t know where it came from. The ball is definitely in your court on this one.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@139), I stumbled across this curious word combox a few weeks back, and was similarly puzzled.

    Turns out it’s short for “comment box”, meaning the comments section underneath a post on a blog. For some reason, referring to it as a “combox” is fairly unique to Catholics[1][2][3].

    [1]ncregister.com/blog/personalities-of-the-catholic-combox
    [2]gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2011/07/combox.html
    [3]te-deum.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholics-in-combox-introductory-post.html

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@139), I stumbled across this curious word combox a few weeks back, and was similarly puzzled.

    Turns out it’s short for “comment box”, meaning the comments section underneath a post on a blog. For some reason, referring to it as a “combox” is fairly unique to Catholics[1][2][3].

    [1]ncregister.com/blog/personalities-of-the-catholic-combox
    [2]gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2011/07/combox.html
    [3]te-deum.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholics-in-combox-introductory-post.html

  • Grace

    Dave @ 137

    “Now, note the following passage, from Steinhaeuser (1930):

    “But she does take it amiss that the vain chatterers preach and write so many things about her merits. They are set on proving their own skill, and fail to see how they spoil the Magnificat, make the Mother of God a liar, and diminish the grace of God. For, in proportion as we ascribe merit and worthiness to her, we lower the grace of God and diminish the truth of the Magnificat. The angel salutes her but as highly favored of God, and because the Lord is with her, wherefore she is blessed among women ( Luke 1:28). Hence all those who heap so great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her, as though she were concerned that men should honor her and look to her for good things, when in truth she thrusts this from her, and would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace.

    “Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; he should then marvel at the exceeding abundant grace of God Who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and praise God for His grace, and drawn to look for all good things to Him, Who does not reject but graciously regards poor and despised and lowly mortals. Thus your heart will be strengthened in faith and love and hope. What, think you, would please her more than to have you thus come through her to God, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God. Again, nothing would please her better than to have you turn in fear from all lofty things on which men set their hearts, seeing that even in His mother God neither found nor desired aught of high degree.

    Dave, you write:

    Except for the last sentence, which doesn’t seem to be there, everything else is (conceptually), which leads me to believe that it is merely a variant issue. What I have seems to be a shorter, or abridged version of the longer one that was translated in 1930 (probably from the Weimar edition, 1883). In the following couplets, I will present my version, then Steinhaeuser’s (with bolding, italics, and bracketed coding for particular comparisons):”

    The last sentence is there, on the site below, ↓ if this is where you copy pasted it from. Is this where you found the quote?

    This can be found about 1/4th down on the page.

    WORKS OF MARTIN LUTHER –
    THE MAGNIFICAT – TRANSLATED AND EXPLAINED 1520-1

    “The only other English translation known to us is one published by James Nicholson in Southwark, in 1538 (Clemen, 2:138), which we have not been able to see. Lonicer prepared a Latin translation (Martin Lutheri super Magnificat commentarii nuper e vernacula in latinurm versi a Jobanne Lonicero, Strassburg, 1525), which is of value in throwing light on several textual difficulties. The gradual growth of the treatise, as well as a short summary of its contents, may be traced in Kostlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther, 5. ed., 1:368, 374 f., 401 f., f. The place that Mary holds in Luther’s theology, as a whole, may be conveniently studied in Kostlin Luthers Theologie, 2 ed. (1883), 1:169 f., 315; 2:23 ff., 375, 386. ALBERT T. W. STEINHAEUSER. Allentown, PA.

    http://godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_c5.htm

  • Grace

    Dave @ 137

    “Now, note the following passage, from Steinhaeuser (1930):

    “But she does take it amiss that the vain chatterers preach and write so many things about her merits. They are set on proving their own skill, and fail to see how they spoil the Magnificat, make the Mother of God a liar, and diminish the grace of God. For, in proportion as we ascribe merit and worthiness to her, we lower the grace of God and diminish the truth of the Magnificat. The angel salutes her but as highly favored of God, and because the Lord is with her, wherefore she is blessed among women ( Luke 1:28). Hence all those who heap so great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her, as though she were concerned that men should honor her and look to her for good things, when in truth she thrusts this from her, and would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace.

    “Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; he should then marvel at the exceeding abundant grace of God Who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and praise God for His grace, and drawn to look for all good things to Him, Who does not reject but graciously regards poor and despised and lowly mortals. Thus your heart will be strengthened in faith and love and hope. What, think you, would please her more than to have you thus come through her to God, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God. Again, nothing would please her better than to have you turn in fear from all lofty things on which men set their hearts, seeing that even in His mother God neither found nor desired aught of high degree.

    Dave, you write:

    Except for the last sentence, which doesn’t seem to be there, everything else is (conceptually), which leads me to believe that it is merely a variant issue. What I have seems to be a shorter, or abridged version of the longer one that was translated in 1930 (probably from the Weimar edition, 1883). In the following couplets, I will present my version, then Steinhaeuser’s (with bolding, italics, and bracketed coding for particular comparisons):”

    The last sentence is there, on the site below, ↓ if this is where you copy pasted it from. Is this where you found the quote?

    This can be found about 1/4th down on the page.

    WORKS OF MARTIN LUTHER –
    THE MAGNIFICAT – TRANSLATED AND EXPLAINED 1520-1

    “The only other English translation known to us is one published by James Nicholson in Southwark, in 1538 (Clemen, 2:138), which we have not been able to see. Lonicer prepared a Latin translation (Martin Lutheri super Magnificat commentarii nuper e vernacula in latinurm versi a Jobanne Lonicero, Strassburg, 1525), which is of value in throwing light on several textual difficulties. The gradual growth of the treatise, as well as a short summary of its contents, may be traced in Kostlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther, 5. ed., 1:368, 374 f., 401 f., f. The place that Mary holds in Luther’s theology, as a whole, may be conveniently studied in Kostlin Luthers Theologie, 2 ed. (1883), 1:169 f., 315; 2:23 ff., 375, 386. ALBERT T. W. STEINHAEUSER. Allentown, PA.

    http://godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_c5.htm

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Dan wrote:

    The erstwhile debate here has centered on the fact that lutherans do not bind themselves to anything and everything Luther ever said.

    That’s no debate with me. Of course Lutherans aren’t so bound. My interest in Luther is a matter of historical theology; also to give Catholic answers to him, and as the founder of Protestantism . . . it’s always important to look into the origins of things, so as to better understand them.

    And I used to be an evangelical Protestant, and an apologist of sorts while I was one. Many beliefs that I critique now, I myself used to hold (and defend).

    Thanks for your kind words. I am enjoying the conversation now, too, and have learned many things today: such as {early} Luther invoking Mary, which I had not seen so directly evidenced before, if I recall correctly.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Dan wrote:

    The erstwhile debate here has centered on the fact that lutherans do not bind themselves to anything and everything Luther ever said.

    That’s no debate with me. Of course Lutherans aren’t so bound. My interest in Luther is a matter of historical theology; also to give Catholic answers to him, and as the founder of Protestantism . . . it’s always important to look into the origins of things, so as to better understand them.

    And I used to be an evangelical Protestant, and an apologist of sorts while I was one. Many beliefs that I critique now, I myself used to hold (and defend).

    Thanks for your kind words. I am enjoying the conversation now, too, and have learned many things today: such as {early} Luther invoking Mary, which I had not seen so directly evidenced before, if I recall correctly.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Todd (@135) wrote:

    Oddly, a year ago, Grace had posted this same quote on this blog (you see how long she’s been at it) in an attempt to make a point about Luther/Lutherans believing in Mary as mediatrix (which you’ve denied), . . .

    I think it’s a basic category error. Luther writes in the Commentary on the Magnificat:

    “She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.”

    and:

    “{Mary} . . . would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace. ”

    The doctrine of Mary as mediatrix is that God chooses to channel His grace (if which only He is the source; we agree with y’all) to men through Mary. Here, Luther is expressing something the opposite of that: going through Mary to God (rather than vice versa, which is the mediatrix doctrine).

    I think what Luther means is one or possibly two things:

    1) Honor towards Mary (what we call veneration) redounds to God the creator and source of all her fine attributes; hence, goes “through” her to Him.

    2) Going “through” Mary is another way of saying that she intercedes for us at our request (since Luther in the same work alludes to such invocation / intercession three times).

    Neither is nearly the same thing as Mary acting as a mediatrix, by God’s sovereign choice.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Todd (@135) wrote:

    Oddly, a year ago, Grace had posted this same quote on this blog (you see how long she’s been at it) in an attempt to make a point about Luther/Lutherans believing in Mary as mediatrix (which you’ve denied), . . .

    I think it’s a basic category error. Luther writes in the Commentary on the Magnificat:

    “She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.”

    and:

    “{Mary} . . . would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace. ”

    The doctrine of Mary as mediatrix is that God chooses to channel His grace (if which only He is the source; we agree with y’all) to men through Mary. Here, Luther is expressing something the opposite of that: going through Mary to God (rather than vice versa, which is the mediatrix doctrine).

    I think what Luther means is one or possibly two things:

    1) Honor towards Mary (what we call veneration) redounds to God the creator and source of all her fine attributes; hence, goes “through” her to Him.

    2) Going “through” Mary is another way of saying that she intercedes for us at our request (since Luther in the same work alludes to such invocation / intercession three times).

    Neither is nearly the same thing as Mary acting as a mediatrix, by God’s sovereign choice.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Todd (@136):

    Agreed and understood. I hope we (or you) do find the (secondary English) source. I’m curious, myself, and surprised it is so difficult to track down.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Todd (@136):

    Agreed and understood. I hope we (or you) do find the (secondary English) source. I’m curious, myself, and surprised it is so difficult to track down.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dan (@139),

    I don’t think anyone is contesting the point you are trying to make,

    Todd did just that exactly three minutes after you posted this comment. LOL He wrote: “I must admit to being slightly confused as to your purpose, at this point.”

    but we lutherans do love to go “Ad Fontes.”

    So do all good researchers and students of history (or theology).

    As has been stated, the issue was not with the substance of the quote, but with the accuracy of the citation.

    I understand that. I was just making a related point, to nip in the bud any implication that Luther’s thought was misrepresented, even if the quotation turns out to be some sort of objectionable patchwork.

    Lacking the data in secondary sources or on the web, I would involve someone who can track it down in the Weimar edition, which is the definitive critical edition of Luther’s works. Thus the suggestion to the library in St. Louis.

    But Weimar is probably what was translated in 1930 into English. My theory is that what I copied is ultimately from one of the other Luther sets (e.g., Walch).

    But, whatever. I’ve got nothing invested in this argument.

    I don’t have much. I’m mostly curious at this point. It’s frustrating that I can’t get back to what I used at the time. I think in other cases of this, I could always find the original source material. But it was 17 years ago, and possibly as early as late 1990 when I found it the first time: before the Internet (1996 for me).

    Btw, what is a “combox?”

    I believe it is short for “comment box”: this thing we are writing in now: discussion under posts.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dan (@139),

    I don’t think anyone is contesting the point you are trying to make,

    Todd did just that exactly three minutes after you posted this comment. LOL He wrote: “I must admit to being slightly confused as to your purpose, at this point.”

    but we lutherans do love to go “Ad Fontes.”

    So do all good researchers and students of history (or theology).

    As has been stated, the issue was not with the substance of the quote, but with the accuracy of the citation.

    I understand that. I was just making a related point, to nip in the bud any implication that Luther’s thought was misrepresented, even if the quotation turns out to be some sort of objectionable patchwork.

    Lacking the data in secondary sources or on the web, I would involve someone who can track it down in the Weimar edition, which is the definitive critical edition of Luther’s works. Thus the suggestion to the library in St. Louis.

    But Weimar is probably what was translated in 1930 into English. My theory is that what I copied is ultimately from one of the other Luther sets (e.g., Walch).

    But, whatever. I’ve got nothing invested in this argument.

    I don’t have much. I’m mostly curious at this point. It’s frustrating that I can’t get back to what I used at the time. I think in other cases of this, I could always find the original source material. But it was 17 years ago, and possibly as early as late 1990 when I found it the first time: before the Internet (1996 for me).

    Btw, what is a “combox?”

    I believe it is short for “comment box”: this thing we are writing in now: discussion under posts.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Todd (@140),

    Dave (@137, 138), I must admit to being slightly confused as to your purpose, at this point. As you may recall (@101), you burst onto the scene complaining about you and your research being “misrepresented”, and rallying under the banner of “accuracy and truth”.

    Yes, of course. At that point the claim was made that deliberate botching and fabrication was occurring. What would you expect me to do. There have been apologies or retractions or recognitions of same from now three people, so why go back to a more negative tone after we have gotten past all that?

    My “purpose, at this point” is to simply find the source; and I have speculated about the text being a variant. I think it’s fun. I agree with Dan that it is no big deal. What was a big deal was the charge of deliberate misrepresentation or “slander,” that was backed away from.

    Might I, then, be forgiven for thinking that your new standard (@137):

    ME: “every concept in the citation that I used is present in Luther, here or elsewhere”

    That’s not a “new standard”; it is simply anticipating another possible objection: hitting it from another angle. No biggie.

    is a little disappointing?

    You’re entitled to your opinion. It is a valid point in and of itself, whatever you think of it.

    I mean, I get that your interest is in what Luther believed, over time. And while that isn’t, as such, my interest, I also have no particular issue with your saying that Luther had some ideas about Mary that not only changed over time, but are not terribly common among modern Lutherans.

    Good. You shouldn’t. He believed what he believed, and that is a determination of historiography.

    But, again, the whole thing that brought you here was about the accuracy of a quote — namely, this one allegedly from the explanation of the Magnificat.

    It wasn’t one quote. My main focus at first was the one about the Immaculate Conception, that I defended at great length (and no one has since contested). Then I got curious about the other, but unexpectedly had trouble finding the source I got it from.

    As you must know, it is hardly scholarly to say a quote is accurate merely because it sounds like something Luther might have said, or said somewhere else — or at least it is consonant with things that we can all agree he actually did say.

    But I didn’t say (or argue) that (nice try). I didn’t say that the quote qua quote was accurate (textually) because it is conceptually similar. I said something very different: that whatever happens in the textual discussion, it remains true that Luther believed what is in this quote. This is a completely different consideration entirely distinct from the textual argument. It was an aside; nothing more, meant to deal with the anticipated objection that the motivation of the person who constructed the quote was to misrepresent Luther.

    I stated above: “I still believe it is a genuine citation; just from another edition of his works that has yet to be determined.” My belief that it is genuine (could still be wrong, if someone shows that) isn’t based on conceptual similarity, but on the fact that I know (almost certainly) that I found the quote from some kind of scholar; hence, that it is very likely authentic, and is a textual variation, such as was discussed in the Introduction.

    ME: “We may quibble about texts till kingdom come”

    Again, this [Magnificat citation] is a quote from you, and you’re standing behind it. I expect a better attitude than that, if you’re going to continue to stake your reputation on this quote.

    That’s ridiculous. What I stood behind was my general contention that I don’t deliberately fabricate quotations, as you charged. It’s absolutely absurd to state that I have staked my “reputation” on this quote. Not at all. It was from 1994 research, before the Internet. I have noted already how I removed the paper it came from, from listings on my Luther web page because it was not sufficiently documented. It is hardly, then, an example of anything I would stand behind. I stood firmly behind the Immaculate Conception quotation, because I have done a great deal of additional research since. This one may still turn out to be objectionable in some fashion, and I will retract what is necessary to retract, if that is shown. That said, it seems to me that enough evidence has been presented to suggest that it is from the same work, but from a different German version of it.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Todd (@140),

    Dave (@137, 138), I must admit to being slightly confused as to your purpose, at this point. As you may recall (@101), you burst onto the scene complaining about you and your research being “misrepresented”, and rallying under the banner of “accuracy and truth”.

    Yes, of course. At that point the claim was made that deliberate botching and fabrication was occurring. What would you expect me to do. There have been apologies or retractions or recognitions of same from now three people, so why go back to a more negative tone after we have gotten past all that?

    My “purpose, at this point” is to simply find the source; and I have speculated about the text being a variant. I think it’s fun. I agree with Dan that it is no big deal. What was a big deal was the charge of deliberate misrepresentation or “slander,” that was backed away from.

    Might I, then, be forgiven for thinking that your new standard (@137):

    ME: “every concept in the citation that I used is present in Luther, here or elsewhere”

    That’s not a “new standard”; it is simply anticipating another possible objection: hitting it from another angle. No biggie.

    is a little disappointing?

    You’re entitled to your opinion. It is a valid point in and of itself, whatever you think of it.

    I mean, I get that your interest is in what Luther believed, over time. And while that isn’t, as such, my interest, I also have no particular issue with your saying that Luther had some ideas about Mary that not only changed over time, but are not terribly common among modern Lutherans.

    Good. You shouldn’t. He believed what he believed, and that is a determination of historiography.

    But, again, the whole thing that brought you here was about the accuracy of a quote — namely, this one allegedly from the explanation of the Magnificat.

    It wasn’t one quote. My main focus at first was the one about the Immaculate Conception, that I defended at great length (and no one has since contested). Then I got curious about the other, but unexpectedly had trouble finding the source I got it from.

    As you must know, it is hardly scholarly to say a quote is accurate merely because it sounds like something Luther might have said, or said somewhere else — or at least it is consonant with things that we can all agree he actually did say.

    But I didn’t say (or argue) that (nice try). I didn’t say that the quote qua quote was accurate (textually) because it is conceptually similar. I said something very different: that whatever happens in the textual discussion, it remains true that Luther believed what is in this quote. This is a completely different consideration entirely distinct from the textual argument. It was an aside; nothing more, meant to deal with the anticipated objection that the motivation of the person who constructed the quote was to misrepresent Luther.

    I stated above: “I still believe it is a genuine citation; just from another edition of his works that has yet to be determined.” My belief that it is genuine (could still be wrong, if someone shows that) isn’t based on conceptual similarity, but on the fact that I know (almost certainly) that I found the quote from some kind of scholar; hence, that it is very likely authentic, and is a textual variation, such as was discussed in the Introduction.

    ME: “We may quibble about texts till kingdom come”

    Again, this [Magnificat citation] is a quote from you, and you’re standing behind it. I expect a better attitude than that, if you’re going to continue to stake your reputation on this quote.

    That’s ridiculous. What I stood behind was my general contention that I don’t deliberately fabricate quotations, as you charged. It’s absolutely absurd to state that I have staked my “reputation” on this quote. Not at all. It was from 1994 research, before the Internet. I have noted already how I removed the paper it came from, from listings on my Luther web page because it was not sufficiently documented. It is hardly, then, an example of anything I would stand behind. I stood firmly behind the Immaculate Conception quotation, because I have done a great deal of additional research since. This one may still turn out to be objectionable in some fashion, and I will retract what is necessary to retract, if that is shown. That said, it seems to me that enough evidence has been presented to suggest that it is from the same work, but from a different German version of it.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    You’ve made this about you, personally,

    No, you and Dan made this about me personally (and he specifically apologized and you softened your stance, too). I was merely responding, since this comes up a lot: how I am supposedly such a terrible Luther researcher (mostly from anti-Catholic quarters).

    and, as you’ve noted, the quote you produced has gone on to be replicated on many, many other websites that use it as proof of this or that.

    That’s correct.

    Is the quote accurate? As in, does there actually exist an English translation with those words in it, or even a German one that would produce such a translation?

    That’s obviously what we’re trying to find out. I thought we were starting to work together towards that end, but now you have decided to go back to the oppositional, polemical thing again.

    This is hardly “quibbling”. You had no problem noting (@127) that the omission of ellipses from your quote was “botched”, “shoddy”, and “rather inexcusable”, though in that case, someone else was at fault.

    Deliberate tampering with a text like that is indefensible.

    Surely, then, the manufacturing of a quote that is merely accurate at the conceptual level would be even more botched, shoddy, and inexcusable — the very accusations that brought you to this site all in a tizzy!

    That remains to be proven.

    Of course, I’m not saying that you did manufacture it. But you are in the awkward position of claiming that you popularized the quote, you stand behind it, and you don’t know where it came from. The ball is definitely in your court on this one.

    I’m not omniscient. I spent a few hours trying to track something down that occurred 17 or more years ago. I wasn’t able to find it (almost always I am able to do so when I search for such “unknown sources”). Most people would understand that I gave it the old college try, and that it is a piece of lost information. But now you want to get all melodramatic (with distortions I have noted above) and go back to polemics.

    Feel free. I think it is unnecessary and uncalled-for. But I’m controversial as always (what else is new?). Now we have a scenario where Dan compliments me by saying, “You have impressed me further by your willingness to double check and correct your sources,” while you are criticizing me for the same exact actions and outlook that have caused Dan to be more and more impressed with me. :-) I’m only one person, not two!

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    You’ve made this about you, personally,

    No, you and Dan made this about me personally (and he specifically apologized and you softened your stance, too). I was merely responding, since this comes up a lot: how I am supposedly such a terrible Luther researcher (mostly from anti-Catholic quarters).

    and, as you’ve noted, the quote you produced has gone on to be replicated on many, many other websites that use it as proof of this or that.

    That’s correct.

    Is the quote accurate? As in, does there actually exist an English translation with those words in it, or even a German one that would produce such a translation?

    That’s obviously what we’re trying to find out. I thought we were starting to work together towards that end, but now you have decided to go back to the oppositional, polemical thing again.

    This is hardly “quibbling”. You had no problem noting (@127) that the omission of ellipses from your quote was “botched”, “shoddy”, and “rather inexcusable”, though in that case, someone else was at fault.

    Deliberate tampering with a text like that is indefensible.

    Surely, then, the manufacturing of a quote that is merely accurate at the conceptual level would be even more botched, shoddy, and inexcusable — the very accusations that brought you to this site all in a tizzy!

    That remains to be proven.

    Of course, I’m not saying that you did manufacture it. But you are in the awkward position of claiming that you popularized the quote, you stand behind it, and you don’t know where it came from. The ball is definitely in your court on this one.

    I’m not omniscient. I spent a few hours trying to track something down that occurred 17 or more years ago. I wasn’t able to find it (almost always I am able to do so when I search for such “unknown sources”). Most people would understand that I gave it the old college try, and that it is a piece of lost information. But now you want to get all melodramatic (with distortions I have noted above) and go back to polemics.

    Feel free. I think it is unnecessary and uncalled-for. But I’m controversial as always (what else is new?). Now we have a scenario where Dan compliments me by saying, “You have impressed me further by your willingness to double check and correct your sources,” while you are criticizing me for the same exact actions and outlook that have caused Dan to be more and more impressed with me. :-) I’m only one person, not two!

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Grace @142

    I’m afraid I am unclear as to what exactly you are contending there.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Grace @142

    I’m afraid I am unclear as to what exactly you are contending there.

  • Grace

    Dave @ 149

    I’m afraid I am unclear as to what exactly you are contending there.

    RE: my post 142 in response to your post @ 137

    I was simply asking you, IF, what you posted came from the site I posted @142 – also pointing out, that the sentence in question is posted on that site.

    The sight below -

    http://godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_c5.htm

  • Grace

    Dave @ 149

    I’m afraid I am unclear as to what exactly you are contending there.

    RE: my post 142 in response to your post @ 137

    I was simply asking you, IF, what you posted came from the site I posted @142 – also pointing out, that the sentence in question is posted on that site.

    The sight below -

    http://godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_c5.htm

  • Grace

    LOL, it should read site not sight -

  • Grace

    LOL, it should read site not sight -

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave, #148,

    tODD is not being polemical and oppositional. It may be understandable to jump to that conclusion based on the typical tone of web debates–I don’t know, I only hang out here–but he is being a solid foil for your argument and expecting you to either produce the citation, or back off of it until you do. It can be very frustrating when he (or others) point out that which is lacking in an argument, but that is one of the things I find so valuable in dialogue with him. A wise man accepts correction.

    You said,” it seems to me that enough evidence has been presented to suggest that it [the magnificat quote] is from the same work, but from a different German version of it.”

    In all fairness, I haven’t seen any evidence of that. It may be proven to your satisfaction, which is fine, but “probably from another version” is not much of an answer. Nor is that how things work in Luther scholarship. The different editions, (Walch, Weimar, Erlangen, St. Louis) don’t have alternate wordings for luther’s works. The Weimar is usually cited because if there ARE variants in the editions, they are noted there. Thus the solution is to read (or find someone who can read) the document in the original language, and then examine the translation that you obtained. Personally, I think it more likely that some scholar rendered this into English himself, and I’d like the chance to know how faithful the translation was to the original text before I render an opinion. I’m sure you would expect nothing less from a lutheran.

    Not that I intend to chase down the quote. I just don’t have the time right now. (Though there is this great staff of reference librarians . . .)

    But please, don’t take umbrage at honest debate. It is a rare and precious commodity.

    Surely we can be unsatisfied with a particular point of your scholarship without being polemical, confrontational, and unpleasant.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave, #148,

    tODD is not being polemical and oppositional. It may be understandable to jump to that conclusion based on the typical tone of web debates–I don’t know, I only hang out here–but he is being a solid foil for your argument and expecting you to either produce the citation, or back off of it until you do. It can be very frustrating when he (or others) point out that which is lacking in an argument, but that is one of the things I find so valuable in dialogue with him. A wise man accepts correction.

    You said,” it seems to me that enough evidence has been presented to suggest that it [the magnificat quote] is from the same work, but from a different German version of it.”

    In all fairness, I haven’t seen any evidence of that. It may be proven to your satisfaction, which is fine, but “probably from another version” is not much of an answer. Nor is that how things work in Luther scholarship. The different editions, (Walch, Weimar, Erlangen, St. Louis) don’t have alternate wordings for luther’s works. The Weimar is usually cited because if there ARE variants in the editions, they are noted there. Thus the solution is to read (or find someone who can read) the document in the original language, and then examine the translation that you obtained. Personally, I think it more likely that some scholar rendered this into English himself, and I’d like the chance to know how faithful the translation was to the original text before I render an opinion. I’m sure you would expect nothing less from a lutheran.

    Not that I intend to chase down the quote. I just don’t have the time right now. (Though there is this great staff of reference librarians . . .)

    But please, don’t take umbrage at honest debate. It is a rare and precious commodity.

    Surely we can be unsatisfied with a particular point of your scholarship without being polemical, confrontational, and unpleasant.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Eh, I had written a comment I wasn’t terribly satisfied with and, right before posting it, I reloaded this page to see if there were any more comments written since I’d composed my reply — in order to avoid the cross-talk that often happens in these “comboxes” (comboces? ;) ).

    But then I read Dan’s reply (@152), and it was what I wanted to say, only better written. So +1 to what Dan said. Only a few paragraphs remain of what I otherwise would have posted:

    Dave (@146), I’m not sure what you meant by “Todd did just that exactly three minutes after you posted this comment,” or if it’s even important. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t contesting your argument that the alleged quote was plausible at all. My “confusion” stemmed from not being sure of what you were trying to prove here. I.e. is this about the Luther quote or about your reputation? Still not sure.

    I was just making a related point, to nip in the bud any implication that Luther’s thought was misrepresented…

    Fair enough, though I certainly didn’t get that the first read through, lacking your subsequent explanation. But, again, fair enough.

    My belief that it is genuine (could still be wrong, if someone shows that)…

    Pretty sure that’s not how logic works. How, exactly, would someone show that the quote is false? Couldn’t you always reply, “Ah, but there might be yet another text out there you haven’t considered!”

    And what would I post to show you that the quote is not genuine? The full text of every variant of Luther’s “Magnificat” extant? “Here, look! It’s not in there, there, or there!”

    No, I very much feel the onus is on you to find a reasonable explanation for this quote. Until that time, its accuracy is unsettled, at best. I don’t feel that you’ve really admitted as much.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Eh, I had written a comment I wasn’t terribly satisfied with and, right before posting it, I reloaded this page to see if there were any more comments written since I’d composed my reply — in order to avoid the cross-talk that often happens in these “comboxes” (comboces? ;) ).

    But then I read Dan’s reply (@152), and it was what I wanted to say, only better written. So +1 to what Dan said. Only a few paragraphs remain of what I otherwise would have posted:

    Dave (@146), I’m not sure what you meant by “Todd did just that exactly three minutes after you posted this comment,” or if it’s even important. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t contesting your argument that the alleged quote was plausible at all. My “confusion” stemmed from not being sure of what you were trying to prove here. I.e. is this about the Luther quote or about your reputation? Still not sure.

    I was just making a related point, to nip in the bud any implication that Luther’s thought was misrepresented…

    Fair enough, though I certainly didn’t get that the first read through, lacking your subsequent explanation. But, again, fair enough.

    My belief that it is genuine (could still be wrong, if someone shows that)…

    Pretty sure that’s not how logic works. How, exactly, would someone show that the quote is false? Couldn’t you always reply, “Ah, but there might be yet another text out there you haven’t considered!”

    And what would I post to show you that the quote is not genuine? The full text of every variant of Luther’s “Magnificat” extant? “Here, look! It’s not in there, there, or there!”

    No, I very much feel the onus is on you to find a reasonable explanation for this quote. Until that time, its accuracy is unsettled, at best. I don’t feel that you’ve really admitted as much.

  • Grace

    My father a pastor, had many books. He collected ‘rare books. We are awaiting the delievery of two more bookcases, which will be used for my fathers books, and some of ours (we have a large collection, of which we have run out of room) – I will check with my siblings, as they too received some of my fathers books. Perhaps we will find some rare books regarding Luther, I certainly hope so.

  • Grace

    My father a pastor, had many books. He collected ‘rare books. We are awaiting the delievery of two more bookcases, which will be used for my fathers books, and some of ours (we have a large collection, of which we have run out of room) – I will check with my siblings, as they too received some of my fathers books. Perhaps we will find some rare books regarding Luther, I certainly hope so.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Here you go: the Luther / Magnificat quote:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/luther-mary-does-not-wish-that-we-come.html

    The quote is said to come from Luther’s exposition of the Magnificat. As some have speculated, the quote isn’t one quote, but rather various sentences strung together. This is indeed the case. The quote in the form above is from William Cole’s article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, page 132-133. Cole states,

    Five years later, likewise preaching for the Feast of Visitation, he marvels at Mary’s humility in the face of Elizabeth’s great praise, which he makes equivalent to “No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sara, blessed above nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.”142

    We cannot dispute the fact that Luther honored Mary wished her to be honored. As Preuss has observed,

    Mary is and remains for Luther worthy of honor or veneration. He always maintains this although he changed the reason for it. For him the main reason is not that she has given us Christ, but that she is a model for our acceptance of Him.

    There remains the question how. Luther himself responds in the Magnificat and many other places:

    One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace. God has given Mary the honor to be the Mother of God and this honor we all wish to give her, to praise her highly, and to hold her in respect. But we must thereby straightway enter the right path, and this way is Christ, for Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ and she bore Christ for me, not herself.144

    Putting it negatively,

    One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to Go.145

    144 WA 1,60; cf. 7, 193, 553, 560, 565, 568, 575; 11, 60; 15, 477, 480; 17 (2), 320; 32, 265; 34 (2), 496.

    145 WA 7, 564, 567, 568, 569, 574; 10 (3), 316; but especially 10 (2), 407.

    _____________________________

    Luther quotes like these have floated around the Internet for years. I’ve found more than a few Luther / Mary quotes come from ultimately from Cole. I don’t have much to say about this, other than the person who asked for documentation about this alleged Luther quote asked the right questions. It’s the same question I’ve asked, often. It’s obvious that Cole was attempting to make a summary statement for Luther using Luther’s words. I don’t have time to go track down all the WA sources and figure out what he did. It is indeed feasible though to check the sources and see how he put his quote together. Generally speaking, all the times I’ve looked up Cole’s references, they’ve checked out. If someone is interested in checking Cole’s documentation, please contact me, as I scanned the document quickly, and, if you’ve worked with scanners, sometimes they aren’t always accurate.

    Regards, James Swan

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Here you go: the Luther / Magnificat quote:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/luther-mary-does-not-wish-that-we-come.html

    The quote is said to come from Luther’s exposition of the Magnificat. As some have speculated, the quote isn’t one quote, but rather various sentences strung together. This is indeed the case. The quote in the form above is from William Cole’s article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, page 132-133. Cole states,

    Five years later, likewise preaching for the Feast of Visitation, he marvels at Mary’s humility in the face of Elizabeth’s great praise, which he makes equivalent to “No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sara, blessed above nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.”142

    We cannot dispute the fact that Luther honored Mary wished her to be honored. As Preuss has observed,

    Mary is and remains for Luther worthy of honor or veneration. He always maintains this although he changed the reason for it. For him the main reason is not that she has given us Christ, but that she is a model for our acceptance of Him.

    There remains the question how. Luther himself responds in the Magnificat and many other places:

    One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace. God has given Mary the honor to be the Mother of God and this honor we all wish to give her, to praise her highly, and to hold her in respect. But we must thereby straightway enter the right path, and this way is Christ, for Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ and she bore Christ for me, not herself.144

    Putting it negatively,

    One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to Go.145

    144 WA 1,60; cf. 7, 193, 553, 560, 565, 568, 575; 11, 60; 15, 477, 480; 17 (2), 320; 32, 265; 34 (2), 496.

    145 WA 7, 564, 567, 568, 569, 574; 10 (3), 316; but especially 10 (2), 407.

    _____________________________

    Luther quotes like these have floated around the Internet for years. I’ve found more than a few Luther / Mary quotes come from ultimately from Cole. I don’t have much to say about this, other than the person who asked for documentation about this alleged Luther quote asked the right questions. It’s the same question I’ve asked, often. It’s obvious that Cole was attempting to make a summary statement for Luther using Luther’s words. I don’t have time to go track down all the WA sources and figure out what he did. It is indeed feasible though to check the sources and see how he put his quote together. Generally speaking, all the times I’ve looked up Cole’s references, they’ve checked out. If someone is interested in checking Cole’s documentation, please contact me, as I scanned the document quickly, and, if you’ve worked with scanners, sometimes they aren’t always accurate.

    Regards, James Swan

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Typo above:

    “the quote in the form above is from William Cole’s article” should be,

    “the quote is from William Cole’s article”

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Typo above:

    “the quote in the form above is from William Cole’s article” should be,

    “the quote is from William Cole’s article”

  • Grace

    James,

    Thank you for your research, it is appreciated, at least by me.

  • Grace

    James,

    Thank you for your research, it is appreciated, at least by me.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Well thank you. I was away from my library most of the day. I was almost sure I recalled the quote being in Cole’s article. I have many of the Luther / Mary articles scanned in, but the Cole article is extensive. It may be the lengthiest treatment of Luther’s Mariology in English. And, I might add, it isn’t a bad article. While I would disagree with Cole in some areas, he did research of primary sources. I appreciate knowing he actually read what he cited.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Well thank you. I was away from my library most of the day. I was almost sure I recalled the quote being in Cole’s article. I have many of the Luther / Mary articles scanned in, but the Cole article is extensive. It may be the lengthiest treatment of Luther’s Mariology in English. And, I might add, it isn’t a bad article. While I would disagree with Cole in some areas, he did research of primary sources. I appreciate knowing he actually read what he cited.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    As I had expected, I did locate the citation that I utilized. I skimmed one of my photocopied articles too fast and missed it the first time around. Determined, I went back to look again and found it. My guess was correct. It’s from:

    “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?, by William J. Cole, Marian Studies, Vol. 21, 1970 (Mariological Society of America; edited by Eamon R. Carroll), pp. 94-202 (citation in question found on pp. 132-133).

    I can see now what happened. The author presented the quotes in a somewhat confusing manner, leading me to merge what now appear to be two separate works, with some ellipses. It was an inadvertent mistake — human error –, certainly not deliberate tampering, but a serious one in terms of citation, which I now acknowledge and retract. I’m just happy that we got to the bottom of this. Here is the entire section. Luther’s words will be in quotation marks. In the original they are indented and in a smaller font. The ellipses below take out a quotation from Horst Preuss about Luther’s view on the veneration of Mary. Brackets surround the words that I eliminated, substituting ellipses.

    =================

    We cannot dispute the fact that Luther honored Mary and wished her to be honored. As Preuss has observed, . . .

    There remains the question how. Luther himself responds in the Magnificat and many other places:

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace. {God has given Mary the honor to be the Mother of God and this honor we all wish to give her, to praise her highly, and to hold her in respect. But we must thereby enter the right path, and this way is Christ, for} Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ {and she bore Christ for me, not herself.” 144

    Putting it negatively,

    “One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God.} Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. 145

    144 WA 1, 60; cf. 7, 193, 553, 560, 565, 568, 575; 11, 60; 15, 477, 480; 17 (2), 320; 32, 265; 34 (2), 496.

    145 WA 7, 564, 567, 568, 569, 574; 10 (3), 316; but especially 10 (2), 407.

    ==========================

    So why did I take out so much text? if I recall correctly, I was trying to get to the heart of the matter at hand: veneration of Mary. Most of what I removed had to do with “Mother of God”, so it was not some conspiracy to take out “evangelical” elements of his words. I left in the very evangelical-sounding “Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.” Thus, there is no grounds for suspecting that I was seeking to distort what was written.

    My mistake was to combine the two, thinking they were from the same work. Oddly, Cole introduces both citations by mentioning the Magnificat, so I assumed that the first one was from that. But it appears that only the second was. The first is from WA 1, 60, and the second from WA, 7, with a bunch of pages listed (which is also confusing, for an excerpt just two sentences long).

    So there you have it. It was a legitimate secondary source in English, with a mistake on my part that I think is perfectly understandable, because of the confusing nature of the presentation.

    I was also wrong in speculating that it was from a version other than Weimar. My source verifies that it is indeed from WA. The mystery is in explaining the difference between the Cole version and the seeming same passage in the Steinhaeuser 1930 version. I don’t have the LW version on-hand to compare that:

    Steinhaeuser (1930): “What, think you, would please her more than to have you thus come through her to God, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.”

    Cole (1970): “”One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.”

    Steinhaeuser doesn’t state in his Introduction the exact source that he is translating (unless I missed it).

    I found an obituary for The Rev. Dr. William J. Cole (1923-1994), that states that he was “professor of theology for 25 years at the University of Dayton.” The article cuts off before one can learn where he obtained his doctorate.

    http://business.highbeam.com/435553/article-1G1-55044444/rev-william-cole-theology-professor

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    As I had expected, I did locate the citation that I utilized. I skimmed one of my photocopied articles too fast and missed it the first time around. Determined, I went back to look again and found it. My guess was correct. It’s from:

    “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?, by William J. Cole, Marian Studies, Vol. 21, 1970 (Mariological Society of America; edited by Eamon R. Carroll), pp. 94-202 (citation in question found on pp. 132-133).

    I can see now what happened. The author presented the quotes in a somewhat confusing manner, leading me to merge what now appear to be two separate works, with some ellipses. It was an inadvertent mistake — human error –, certainly not deliberate tampering, but a serious one in terms of citation, which I now acknowledge and retract. I’m just happy that we got to the bottom of this. Here is the entire section. Luther’s words will be in quotation marks. In the original they are indented and in a smaller font. The ellipses below take out a quotation from Horst Preuss about Luther’s view on the veneration of Mary. Brackets surround the words that I eliminated, substituting ellipses.

    =================

    We cannot dispute the fact that Luther honored Mary and wished her to be honored. As Preuss has observed, . . .

    There remains the question how. Luther himself responds in the Magnificat and many other places:

    “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace. {God has given Mary the honor to be the Mother of God and this honor we all wish to give her, to praise her highly, and to hold her in respect. But we must thereby enter the right path, and this way is Christ, for} Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ {and she bore Christ for me, not herself.” 144

    Putting it negatively,

    “One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God.} Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. 145

    144 WA 1, 60; cf. 7, 193, 553, 560, 565, 568, 575; 11, 60; 15, 477, 480; 17 (2), 320; 32, 265; 34 (2), 496.

    145 WA 7, 564, 567, 568, 569, 574; 10 (3), 316; but especially 10 (2), 407.

    ==========================

    So why did I take out so much text? if I recall correctly, I was trying to get to the heart of the matter at hand: veneration of Mary. Most of what I removed had to do with “Mother of God”, so it was not some conspiracy to take out “evangelical” elements of his words. I left in the very evangelical-sounding “Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.” Thus, there is no grounds for suspecting that I was seeking to distort what was written.

    My mistake was to combine the two, thinking they were from the same work. Oddly, Cole introduces both citations by mentioning the Magnificat, so I assumed that the first one was from that. But it appears that only the second was. The first is from WA 1, 60, and the second from WA, 7, with a bunch of pages listed (which is also confusing, for an excerpt just two sentences long).

    So there you have it. It was a legitimate secondary source in English, with a mistake on my part that I think is perfectly understandable, because of the confusing nature of the presentation.

    I was also wrong in speculating that it was from a version other than Weimar. My source verifies that it is indeed from WA. The mystery is in explaining the difference between the Cole version and the seeming same passage in the Steinhaeuser 1930 version. I don’t have the LW version on-hand to compare that:

    Steinhaeuser (1930): “What, think you, would please her more than to have you thus come through her to God, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.”

    Cole (1970): “”One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.”

    Steinhaeuser doesn’t state in his Introduction the exact source that he is translating (unless I missed it).

    I found an obituary for The Rev. Dr. William J. Cole (1923-1994), that states that he was “professor of theology for 25 years at the University of Dayton.” The article cuts off before one can learn where he obtained his doctorate.

    http://business.highbeam.com/435553/article-1G1-55044444/rev-william-cole-theology-professor

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I found the quote on my own without consulting the above post (which I saw only after I posted), from our friend who has been obsessed with my work for nine years now, and is on record classifying me as a psychotic, saying my work is idiotic and that no one should take it seriously, etc. Just so you are aware of a certain animus, if he sticks around . . . he doesn’t come into this (to put it very mildly) as a neutral party.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I found the quote on my own without consulting the above post (which I saw only after I posted), from our friend who has been obsessed with my work for nine years now, and is on record classifying me as a psychotic, saying my work is idiotic and that no one should take it seriously, etc. Just so you are aware of a certain animus, if he sticks around . . . he doesn’t come into this (to put it very mildly) as a neutral party.

  • Tom Hering

    I find this fascinating. And I don’t mean all the research on the Luther quote in question. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    I find this fascinating. And I don’t mean all the research on the Luther quote in question. :-D

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Well I’m not terribly interested in whatever James and Dave have to say outside of this blog (especially about each other — no offense guys, I’m sure your blogs are stellar, but keeping up with this blog here is more than enough for me), but one gold star each for you in tracking down this particular issue today! Although James did cross the finish line 45 minutes before you, Dave — a surprisingly tight race, honestly.

    And thanks, Dave, for owning up to your error. I know that’s difficult to do, perhaps especially in online discussions in which one is invested. You are forgiven.

    That said, I hope it’s not pouring too much salt in the wound to express hope that you’ll post this final update to the parallel blog post you’ve been running, or even that it might merit its own post (as unwieldy as that one post has become)! I ask this not out of some misguided notion of penance being paid for your error (of course not), but rather in the perhaps vain hope that your blog would show up early in the Google results for the next poor soul trying to track down the source of a somewhat spurious Luther quote being (ab)used in an online discussion.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Well I’m not terribly interested in whatever James and Dave have to say outside of this blog (especially about each other — no offense guys, I’m sure your blogs are stellar, but keeping up with this blog here is more than enough for me), but one gold star each for you in tracking down this particular issue today! Although James did cross the finish line 45 minutes before you, Dave — a surprisingly tight race, honestly.

    And thanks, Dave, for owning up to your error. I know that’s difficult to do, perhaps especially in online discussions in which one is invested. You are forgiven.

    That said, I hope it’s not pouring too much salt in the wound to express hope that you’ll post this final update to the parallel blog post you’ve been running, or even that it might merit its own post (as unwieldy as that one post has become)! I ask this not out of some misguided notion of penance being paid for your error (of course not), but rather in the perhaps vain hope that your blog would show up early in the Google results for the next poor soul trying to track down the source of a somewhat spurious Luther quote being (ab)used in an online discussion.

  • Grace

    James Swan 158

    My husband and I have had an EXTENDED discussion about what has been posted here, among other related topics. I do hope that you continue to come here and post.

  • Grace

    James Swan 158

    My husband and I have had an EXTENDED discussion about what has been posted here, among other related topics. I do hope that you continue to come here and post.

  • Grace

    Dave Armstrong,

    You have not answered my post @ 150. Why is that?

  • Grace

    Dave Armstrong,

    You have not answered my post @ 150. Why is that?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And finally (?), Grace, I sincerely hope this puts the nail in the coffin of your resorting to this particular “quote” of Luther’s to make the kind of points you are wont to make on this blog.

    It has been shown to be inaccurate as you always present it (especially when you omit the ellipses). It comes from multiple sources, and only the last little bit comes from the source to which you attribute it.

    It was clear from early in this conversation that you had in no way actually read the original document to which you alluded — primarily because most of the quote isn’t found there, but also because the document itself does not back up your repeated claim that, in it, Luther presents Mary as mediatrix. Even our Catholic friend here — the one whom you inadvertantly quoted — denies that “reading” of yours.

    Of course, you’ve been tossing out cherry-picked Luther quotes (spurious and not) at us for over a year now and still haven’t worked out that this has no bearing, as such, on Lutheran theology, so I’m not sure why I’m hopeful that, all of a sudden, you’ll have an understanding of things.

    What’s funny is how often you’ve tried to pass yourself off as knowledgeable about Luther’s statements, possessing the gall to lecture Lutherans about what they believe. But when people who actually possess understanding and knowledge showed up — people who read source documents, even! — you suddenly took a back seat in the conversation (not that you ever once answered my question about where you got your “quote” from). Where was Grace the Luther Scholar at that point? Nowhere to be found!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And finally (?), Grace, I sincerely hope this puts the nail in the coffin of your resorting to this particular “quote” of Luther’s to make the kind of points you are wont to make on this blog.

    It has been shown to be inaccurate as you always present it (especially when you omit the ellipses). It comes from multiple sources, and only the last little bit comes from the source to which you attribute it.

    It was clear from early in this conversation that you had in no way actually read the original document to which you alluded — primarily because most of the quote isn’t found there, but also because the document itself does not back up your repeated claim that, in it, Luther presents Mary as mediatrix. Even our Catholic friend here — the one whom you inadvertantly quoted — denies that “reading” of yours.

    Of course, you’ve been tossing out cherry-picked Luther quotes (spurious and not) at us for over a year now and still haven’t worked out that this has no bearing, as such, on Lutheran theology, so I’m not sure why I’m hopeful that, all of a sudden, you’ll have an understanding of things.

    What’s funny is how often you’ve tried to pass yourself off as knowledgeable about Luther’s statements, possessing the gall to lecture Lutherans about what they believe. But when people who actually possess understanding and knowledge showed up — people who read source documents, even! — you suddenly took a back seat in the conversation (not that you ever once answered my question about where you got your “quote” from). Where was Grace the Luther Scholar at that point? Nowhere to be found!

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Although James did cross the finish line 45 minutes before you, Dave — a surprisingly tight race, honestly.

    If I hadn’t watched two hours of the Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition, mine would have been two hours earlier. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Although James did cross the finish line 45 minutes before you, Dave — a surprisingly tight race, honestly.

    If I hadn’t watched two hours of the Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition, mine would have been two hours earlier. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I hope it’s not pouring too much salt in the wound to express hope that you’ll post this final update to the parallel blog post you’ve been running, or even that it might merit its own post (as unwieldy as that one post has become)!

    Absolutely. I will also go into my original post and make the clarification there of the quotation.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I hope it’s not pouring too much salt in the wound to express hope that you’ll post this final update to the parallel blog post you’ve been running, or even that it might merit its own post (as unwieldy as that one post has become)!

    Absolutely. I will also go into my original post and make the clarification there of the quotation.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    You have not answered my post @ 150. Why is that?

    Obviously a conspiracy to ignore you.

    Well no; actually:

    1) I was busy tracking down my quotation.

    2) Busy watching the Tigers whip the Yankees.

    3) Busy watching Hannity (midnight showing).

    I still don’t follow your point anyway. You’re being too vague. I think it’s all irrelevant now, anyway, with the source having been found.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    You have not answered my post @ 150. Why is that?

    Obviously a conspiracy to ignore you.

    Well no; actually:

    1) I was busy tracking down my quotation.

    2) Busy watching the Tigers whip the Yankees.

    3) Busy watching Hannity (midnight showing).

    I still don’t follow your point anyway. You’re being too vague. I think it’s all irrelevant now, anyway, with the source having been found.

  • Grace

    Dave Armstrong @ 168

    I WROTE: “You have not answered my post @ 150. Why is that?”

    YOU WROTE:

    “Obviously a conspiracy to ignore you.

    Well no; actually:

    1) I was busy tracking down my quotation.

    2) Busy watching the Tigers whip the Yankees.

    3) Busy watching Hannity (midnight showing).

    I still don’t follow your point anyway. You’re being too vague. I think it’s all irrelevant now, anyway, with the source having been found.”

    The question is straightforward, either you cannot understand it, or you have opted to avoid it – most likely because I found the site you copy pasted from, which you don’t want to admit to.

    http://godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_c5.htm

    As far as “conspiracy” …. I would have expected something more from you, rather than sophomoric phases.

  • Grace

    Dave Armstrong @ 168

    I WROTE: “You have not answered my post @ 150. Why is that?”

    YOU WROTE:

    “Obviously a conspiracy to ignore you.

    Well no; actually:

    1) I was busy tracking down my quotation.

    2) Busy watching the Tigers whip the Yankees.

    3) Busy watching Hannity (midnight showing).

    I still don’t follow your point anyway. You’re being too vague. I think it’s all irrelevant now, anyway, with the source having been found.”

    The question is straightforward, either you cannot understand it, or you have opted to avoid it – most likely because I found the site you copy pasted from, which you don’t want to admit to.

    http://godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_c5.htm

    As far as “conspiracy” …. I would have expected something more from you, rather than sophomoric phases.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Right. Well, I don’t expect much from you, either, after this silly episode, and can see a lot more clearly why you have made yourself quite unpopular here, and why Todd lit into you pretty severely.

    You found nothing new. Todd had already cited that, and I was consulting and using it before you ever mentioned it. I also have the book that it is from in my library.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Right. Well, I don’t expect much from you, either, after this silly episode, and can see a lot more clearly why you have made yourself quite unpopular here, and why Todd lit into you pretty severely.

    You found nothing new. Todd had already cited that, and I was consulting and using it before you ever mentioned it. I also have the book that it is from in my library.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Todd linked to it in #111 and I did in #127-128.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Todd linked to it in #111 and I did in #127-128.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@169), even for you, this behavior is bizarre:

    most likely because I found the site you copy pasted from, which you don’t want to admit to.

    Um, I don’t know how to break this to you, but if you actually read the words above your comment, you’ll see that Dave and I explicitly referred to this page multiple times.

    Quite humorously, I linked to the same GodRules.net page you’ve suddenly discovered this evening, all the way back at comment #25 — five days ago, Grace! — where I exhorted you to “try actually reading” the document you were allegedly quoting. Obviously, you did not take my advice.

    I then urged you a second time (@53) to “read what Luther wrote”, again linking to the GodRules.net page.

    Once Dave arrived on the scene — and an actual discussion of the provenance of this quote began in earnest, your stonewalling having gotten us nowhere — I again pointed (@111) where I was reading Luther’s explanation of the Magnificat, the nominal text under discussion.

    I also noted there (and you apparently have yet to work this part out) that the text at the GodRules.net page appears to be taken directly from “Muhlenberg Press’ Works of Martin Luther” — making it not just another Web page recycling spurious quotes, but the text of an actual book of reasonably scholarly quality.

    Dave then himself referred directly to the same website (@127), referring to it as:

    The version from the Philadelphia edition of the early 30s (available online; I think Todd found this, too)

    (Lest it confuse you, I referred to the name of the publisher, while he referred to the city and decade of its publishing; same thing.)

    He then referred to GodRules.net once more in the next comment (@128).

    Just for good measure, I referred — slightly more obliquely (@135) — to “the translation available at GodRules.net”, which we were using as a commonly available (if poorly formatted) online source for this work.

    All that to say, for you to come here and accuse Dave of “not wanting to admit” to using this site is beyond ridiculous. He explicitly referred to it several times, well before you apparently discovered it (@142, 150), and several days after I first brought it into this discussion, with comments directly addressed to you!

    All of which misses the much larger point that Dave actually possesses research skills beyond what you’ve demonstrated here, and has moved beyond easily-Googled sources (to which I, by my own admission, limited myself; but then, I don’t pretend to be a scholar on this topic) to at least reasonable secondary sources.
    I mean, in the time it took you to write your comment (@169), you might have bothered to notice that both Dave (@159) and James (@155) worked out that the alleged “quote” from Luther’s Magnificat treatise was actually a mangling (albeit unintentional) of a paraphrase, from several works of Luther’s, taken from “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?”, by William J. Cole, Marian Studies, Vol. 21, 1970.

    I mean, honestly, how did you miss all that, Grace?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@169), even for you, this behavior is bizarre:

    most likely because I found the site you copy pasted from, which you don’t want to admit to.

    Um, I don’t know how to break this to you, but if you actually read the words above your comment, you’ll see that Dave and I explicitly referred to this page multiple times.

    Quite humorously, I linked to the same GodRules.net page you’ve suddenly discovered this evening, all the way back at comment #25 — five days ago, Grace! — where I exhorted you to “try actually reading” the document you were allegedly quoting. Obviously, you did not take my advice.

    I then urged you a second time (@53) to “read what Luther wrote”, again linking to the GodRules.net page.

    Once Dave arrived on the scene — and an actual discussion of the provenance of this quote began in earnest, your stonewalling having gotten us nowhere — I again pointed (@111) where I was reading Luther’s explanation of the Magnificat, the nominal text under discussion.

    I also noted there (and you apparently have yet to work this part out) that the text at the GodRules.net page appears to be taken directly from “Muhlenberg Press’ Works of Martin Luther” — making it not just another Web page recycling spurious quotes, but the text of an actual book of reasonably scholarly quality.

    Dave then himself referred directly to the same website (@127), referring to it as:

    The version from the Philadelphia edition of the early 30s (available online; I think Todd found this, too)

    (Lest it confuse you, I referred to the name of the publisher, while he referred to the city and decade of its publishing; same thing.)

    He then referred to GodRules.net once more in the next comment (@128).

    Just for good measure, I referred — slightly more obliquely (@135) — to “the translation available at GodRules.net”, which we were using as a commonly available (if poorly formatted) online source for this work.

    All that to say, for you to come here and accuse Dave of “not wanting to admit” to using this site is beyond ridiculous. He explicitly referred to it several times, well before you apparently discovered it (@142, 150), and several days after I first brought it into this discussion, with comments directly addressed to you!

    All of which misses the much larger point that Dave actually possesses research skills beyond what you’ve demonstrated here, and has moved beyond easily-Googled sources (to which I, by my own admission, limited myself; but then, I don’t pretend to be a scholar on this topic) to at least reasonable secondary sources.
    I mean, in the time it took you to write your comment (@169), you might have bothered to notice that both Dave (@159) and James (@155) worked out that the alleged “quote” from Luther’s Magnificat treatise was actually a mangling (albeit unintentional) of a paraphrase, from several works of Luther’s, taken from “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?”, by William J. Cole, Marian Studies, Vol. 21, 1970.

    I mean, honestly, how did you miss all that, Grace?

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “My husband and I have had an EXTENDED discussion about what has been posted here, among other related topics. I do hope that you continue to come here and post.”

    No, I don’t plan on hanging around. I have though been thoroughly entertained, especially by post #160.

    I appreciate those folks who asked the right questions about documentation. I’ve asked similar questions on a variety of Luther quotes for a number of years.

    Regards,

    James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “My husband and I have had an EXTENDED discussion about what has been posted here, among other related topics. I do hope that you continue to come here and post.”

    No, I don’t plan on hanging around. I have though been thoroughly entertained, especially by post #160.

    I appreciate those folks who asked the right questions about documentation. I’ve asked similar questions on a variety of Luther quotes for a number of years.

    Regards,

    James

  • Dan Kempin

    Okay, this hair that I am about to split is not intended to re-ignite the discussion, but technically, TECHNICALLY, a quote of Luther in English should be from an English edition of Luther’s works. If an edition of Luther’s works in the original language is used, then the text should be cited IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. A translation can then be rendered by the author, but the reader will (if capable) have the ability to translate for himself.

    I say this to both Dave and James. I’m glad that you both found the source that you used, but technically it is improper to use the citation “WA” unless you are actually, you know, quoting from the Weimar edition of Luther’s works. What you have given us is–again, you know, technically–what someone else SAID they got from Luther’s works.

    I only say this to benefit your future scholarly citation. In this discussion you quoted Cole, not Luther. (You know, technically.)

    It has been fun, though. Dave, I hope we see you around here again.

    And I hope it was great watching the Tigers beating the Yankees. Personally, I hope the Lions and Packers remain undefeated until Thanksgiving. Now there’s an awesome thought!

  • Dan Kempin

    Okay, this hair that I am about to split is not intended to re-ignite the discussion, but technically, TECHNICALLY, a quote of Luther in English should be from an English edition of Luther’s works. If an edition of Luther’s works in the original language is used, then the text should be cited IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. A translation can then be rendered by the author, but the reader will (if capable) have the ability to translate for himself.

    I say this to both Dave and James. I’m glad that you both found the source that you used, but technically it is improper to use the citation “WA” unless you are actually, you know, quoting from the Weimar edition of Luther’s works. What you have given us is–again, you know, technically–what someone else SAID they got from Luther’s works.

    I only say this to benefit your future scholarly citation. In this discussion you quoted Cole, not Luther. (You know, technically.)

    It has been fun, though. Dave, I hope we see you around here again.

    And I hope it was great watching the Tigers beating the Yankees. Personally, I hope the Lions and Packers remain undefeated until Thanksgiving. Now there’s an awesome thought!

  • Dan Kempin

    Grace, #154,

    “My father a pastor, had many books. He collected ‘rare books. We are awaiting the delievery of two more bookcases, which will be used for my fathers books . . .”

    I gather that your father has gone to be with the Lord. As a lover of old books and a pastor, I hope that the handling of his old books brings back many fond memories as you long for the day you will see him again. Though we have differed in some points of discussion, I respect the way you have honored your father and the faith he has instilled in you.

    And yes, I hope you find some rare Luther books in there, too . . .

  • Dan Kempin

    Grace, #154,

    “My father a pastor, had many books. He collected ‘rare books. We are awaiting the delievery of two more bookcases, which will be used for my fathers books . . .”

    I gather that your father has gone to be with the Lord. As a lover of old books and a pastor, I hope that the handling of his old books brings back many fond memories as you long for the day you will see him again. Though we have differed in some points of discussion, I respect the way you have honored your father and the faith he has instilled in you.

    And yes, I hope you find some rare Luther books in there, too . . .

  • Dan Kempin

    James Swan,

    I checked your web link and it was enlightening. It seems that you have had very similar conversations before now.

  • Dan Kempin

    James Swan,

    I checked your web link and it was enlightening. It seems that you have had very similar conversations before now.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @173 I have though been thoroughly entertained, especially by post #160.

    Glad to hear it. I, too, have been hugely entertained and amused by our virulently anti-Catholic friend for many years, by what I mentioned in #160, and antics such as, e.g., the multi-part series he recently hosted on his blog, in which it was contended with a straight face that Pope Benedict XVI was a pantheist, or his six “book reviews” of my volume, Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin, in which the author’s name (yours truly) is never mentioned, or by his regular ramshackle treatments of my research on his blog, while I am banned there and can never respond to anything (because, according to him, I suffer from severe psychotic and otherwise quite mentally unhealthy maladies).

    My absolute favorite, I think (tough to choose from such riches of folly) is his “scholarly” observation about Luther’s Bible:

    “I do recall mentioning from time to time that indeed German translations of the Bible were available previous to Luther, but that most of these were written in high-German. Luther’s translation gained immediate popularity due to its readability . . . [related combox comment] I recall it being said the German Luther wrote his Bible in was different than that previous. ” (6-29-11)

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/dutch-research-on-luther-bible.html

    In other words, he seems to think that High German was largely inexplicable (like saying “Shakespearean English” or something), so that Luther came along (again, according to his factually false view) and wrote in Low German, making the Bible readable for most of the common men of Germany. He seems to think High German means “more difficult German” whereas “Low German” is more of the common tongue. I assume there is no need to explain the difference on a Lutheran blog.

    He had made the same silly mistake in a combox comment on his site, dated 15 March 2010:

    “Luther’s translation though [sic] far surpassed earlier German Bibles for two main reasons (the later [sic] being the more important): The printing press made Luther’s Bible readily available to a society that was already purchasing his writings (that is, he was popular), secondly, his translation was not written in high German, but in [sic] written in a way that could be easily understood by the common man. ”

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/03/did-luther-plagiarize-his-translation.html?showComment=1268697244916#c2725924149738039029

    It gets extremely wearisome, but it’s also fun and a source of great amusement to my readers. We all need diversions once in a while.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @173 I have though been thoroughly entertained, especially by post #160.

    Glad to hear it. I, too, have been hugely entertained and amused by our virulently anti-Catholic friend for many years, by what I mentioned in #160, and antics such as, e.g., the multi-part series he recently hosted on his blog, in which it was contended with a straight face that Pope Benedict XVI was a pantheist, or his six “book reviews” of my volume, Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin, in which the author’s name (yours truly) is never mentioned, or by his regular ramshackle treatments of my research on his blog, while I am banned there and can never respond to anything (because, according to him, I suffer from severe psychotic and otherwise quite mentally unhealthy maladies).

    My absolute favorite, I think (tough to choose from such riches of folly) is his “scholarly” observation about Luther’s Bible:

    “I do recall mentioning from time to time that indeed German translations of the Bible were available previous to Luther, but that most of these were written in high-German. Luther’s translation gained immediate popularity due to its readability . . . [related combox comment] I recall it being said the German Luther wrote his Bible in was different than that previous. ” (6-29-11)

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/dutch-research-on-luther-bible.html

    In other words, he seems to think that High German was largely inexplicable (like saying “Shakespearean English” or something), so that Luther came along (again, according to his factually false view) and wrote in Low German, making the Bible readable for most of the common men of Germany. He seems to think High German means “more difficult German” whereas “Low German” is more of the common tongue. I assume there is no need to explain the difference on a Lutheran blog.

    He had made the same silly mistake in a combox comment on his site, dated 15 March 2010:

    “Luther’s translation though [sic] far surpassed earlier German Bibles for two main reasons (the later [sic] being the more important): The printing press made Luther’s Bible readily available to a society that was already purchasing his writings (that is, he was popular), secondly, his translation was not written in high German, but in [sic] written in a way that could be easily understood by the common man. ”

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/03/did-luther-plagiarize-his-translation.html?showComment=1268697244916#c2725924149738039029

    It gets extremely wearisome, but it’s also fun and a source of great amusement to my readers. We all need diversions once in a while.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dan,

    Okay, this hair that I am about to split is not intended to re-ignite the discussion, but technically, TECHNICALLY, a quote of Luther in English should be from an English edition of Luther’s works. If an edition of Luther’s works in the original language is used, then the text should be cited IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. A translation can then be rendered by the author, but the reader will (if capable) have the ability to translate for himself.

    Who does this — systematically providing German texts in an English work (except perhaps for some technical ultra-scholarly volumes)? I don’t recall ever seeing such a thing. This would invalidate, e.g., Here I Stand by Roland Bainton, where WA and many other German sources are regularly cited (because LW was not yet available). Oberman’s biography (translated into English) does the same; ditto for Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther and Luther’s Theology of the Cross, by Alister E. McGrath, and the English-language work, What Luther Says by Ewald M. Plass, that never cites LW at all and has scarcely a word of German in it.

    I think if you start contending that a translation of a primary source by a scholar is invalid, then you’ll take out (just a rough estimate) 50-60% or more of the books written about Luther in English (ones that regularly cite WA rather than LW).

    Are you seriously contending that in all these cases, when one cites a Luther quotation, it ain’t really Luther, but only Oberman, Althaus, McGrath, Bainton, and Plass (and/or the translators of the first two)?

    I don’t think this is necessary at all, anymore than English translations of the Bible must constantly provide the Greek or Hebrew (as if all Bibles must be interlinears to be legitimate and trustworthy). At some point the scholar has to be trusted to know what he is doing, and for accurate translation of primary texts.

    I think all that is required in scholarly work (and I’m not claiming to be a scholar; I’m just a lay apologist) is to provide the primary source documentation. Readers like yourself, then, who are concerned with the minutest textual accuracy may then check the original language if they so wish. Cole (and all these others) have done that. If you know German, I’d love to learn more about the sources he cited, and see your renderings of them, if you think his are suspect in any way.

    Dave, I hope we see you around here again.

    If it’s agreeable to the folks here, I have enjoyed it, for the most part (as I have my discussions with most Lutherans through the years).

    I’ve been seeking serious, amiable discussion with thinking Protestants who aren’t anti-Catholic. I have followed a policy for over four years now, of not wasting my time trying to debate anti-Catholics who are, in my firm opinion, literally incapable of constructive dialogues with Catholics (I believe Plato or Socrates said that a true dialogue can only occur, or best occurs, between friends who respect each other). I tried to engage them for 16 years (1991-2007), and then gave up. It’s one of the best time-management decisions I ever made. But the many scores of old attempted “debates” remain online for those who are interested.

    James White (the leader of that faction online) predicted that my blog would wither up and die when I announced this policy), since he was under the illusion that all I did was wrangle with anti-Catholic fundamentalist zealots like himself. It has since more than doubled in daily hits and has had more than 1.7 million total visitors since 2004. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dan,

    Okay, this hair that I am about to split is not intended to re-ignite the discussion, but technically, TECHNICALLY, a quote of Luther in English should be from an English edition of Luther’s works. If an edition of Luther’s works in the original language is used, then the text should be cited IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. A translation can then be rendered by the author, but the reader will (if capable) have the ability to translate for himself.

    Who does this — systematically providing German texts in an English work (except perhaps for some technical ultra-scholarly volumes)? I don’t recall ever seeing such a thing. This would invalidate, e.g., Here I Stand by Roland Bainton, where WA and many other German sources are regularly cited (because LW was not yet available). Oberman’s biography (translated into English) does the same; ditto for Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther and Luther’s Theology of the Cross, by Alister E. McGrath, and the English-language work, What Luther Says by Ewald M. Plass, that never cites LW at all and has scarcely a word of German in it.

    I think if you start contending that a translation of a primary source by a scholar is invalid, then you’ll take out (just a rough estimate) 50-60% or more of the books written about Luther in English (ones that regularly cite WA rather than LW).

    Are you seriously contending that in all these cases, when one cites a Luther quotation, it ain’t really Luther, but only Oberman, Althaus, McGrath, Bainton, and Plass (and/or the translators of the first two)?

    I don’t think this is necessary at all, anymore than English translations of the Bible must constantly provide the Greek or Hebrew (as if all Bibles must be interlinears to be legitimate and trustworthy). At some point the scholar has to be trusted to know what he is doing, and for accurate translation of primary texts.

    I think all that is required in scholarly work (and I’m not claiming to be a scholar; I’m just a lay apologist) is to provide the primary source documentation. Readers like yourself, then, who are concerned with the minutest textual accuracy may then check the original language if they so wish. Cole (and all these others) have done that. If you know German, I’d love to learn more about the sources he cited, and see your renderings of them, if you think his are suspect in any way.

    Dave, I hope we see you around here again.

    If it’s agreeable to the folks here, I have enjoyed it, for the most part (as I have my discussions with most Lutherans through the years).

    I’ve been seeking serious, amiable discussion with thinking Protestants who aren’t anti-Catholic. I have followed a policy for over four years now, of not wasting my time trying to debate anti-Catholics who are, in my firm opinion, literally incapable of constructive dialogues with Catholics (I believe Plato or Socrates said that a true dialogue can only occur, or best occurs, between friends who respect each other). I tried to engage them for 16 years (1991-2007), and then gave up. It’s one of the best time-management decisions I ever made. But the many scores of old attempted “debates” remain online for those who are interested.

    James White (the leader of that faction online) predicted that my blog would wither up and die when I announced this policy), since he was under the illusion that all I did was wrangle with anti-Catholic fundamentalist zealots like himself. It has since more than doubled in daily hits and has had more than 1.7 million total visitors since 2004. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    As a further reductio ad absurdum, could we not then also say that, in citing LW, we are still not citing Luther, but rather, Pelikan, Gritsch, and the other translators (and the same with Bibles)?

    It all comes down to relative ability to translate, and necessarily trusting the integrity and substantial objectivity of scholars (just as with Bibles). Are we gonna say that Bainton or McGrath are incapable of accurately rendering a Luther saying into English? You never quote those guys citing Luther yourself, but only do your own translations, etc.?

    I don’t think such a line of reasoning can be sustained, either logically, or practically speaking, as we English-speakers set out to do research on Luther.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    As a further reductio ad absurdum, could we not then also say that, in citing LW, we are still not citing Luther, but rather, Pelikan, Gritsch, and the other translators (and the same with Bibles)?

    It all comes down to relative ability to translate, and necessarily trusting the integrity and substantial objectivity of scholars (just as with Bibles). Are we gonna say that Bainton or McGrath are incapable of accurately rendering a Luther saying into English? You never quote those guys citing Luther yourself, but only do your own translations, etc.?

    I don’t think such a line of reasoning can be sustained, either logically, or practically speaking, as we English-speakers set out to do research on Luther.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Granted, you said all this was “technical” — but my impression is that you are seriously contending for this practice, as if it should actually be done as a matter of course.

    I’d love to see all this wealth of Luther material that is sitting out there in German, untranslated, because (in part) certain folks were scared all these years of what people would think.

    Swan, by the way (here’s one of innumerable examples of what I go through with him) once chided me when I mentioned that there were a lot of Luther’s writings not translated into English, that is, until I produced a report that the editors of LW were adding 20 new volumes, at which point he radically changed his tune. :-) See my paper:

    “Untranslated German Works of Martin Luther (Including Two-Thirds of the Weimar Werke: “WA”): 20 New Volumes in English Forthcoming”

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/05/lots-of-luthers-works-in-german.html

    I knew back in 1990 that this was the case (having been informed by my mentor, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., but it is good to get Swan up to speed. Better late than never.

    Perhaps the new works will be translated in both High and Low English, so the peasants can have their own understandable version. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Granted, you said all this was “technical” — but my impression is that you are seriously contending for this practice, as if it should actually be done as a matter of course.

    I’d love to see all this wealth of Luther material that is sitting out there in German, untranslated, because (in part) certain folks were scared all these years of what people would think.

    Swan, by the way (here’s one of innumerable examples of what I go through with him) once chided me when I mentioned that there were a lot of Luther’s writings not translated into English, that is, until I produced a report that the editors of LW were adding 20 new volumes, at which point he radically changed his tune. :-) See my paper:

    “Untranslated German Works of Martin Luther (Including Two-Thirds of the Weimar Werke: “WA”): 20 New Volumes in English Forthcoming”

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/05/lots-of-luthers-works-in-german.html

    I knew back in 1990 that this was the case (having been informed by my mentor, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., but it is good to get Swan up to speed. Better late than never.

    Perhaps the new works will be translated in both High and Low English, so the peasants can have their own understandable version. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    As a further reductio, your scenario would mean that every reader of a book on Luther becomes in effect the expert who can sit in judgment on the scholar who translates Luther in a certain fashion. Rather than trusting the Luther scholar (the one who has devoted his life to his task, and who has devoured and mastered many hundreds of related books and as many scholarly articles), who is quite capable of translation, we all rely on ourselves.

    So now Cole or Bainton or McGrath or Plass or all the rest aren’t good enough to be trusted for their Luther renderings and Dan Kempin or anyone else who knows German must step in to constantly verify.

    But how is that an improvement in anything? All that means is that it is now Kempin’s judgment vs. Bainton, or Kempin vs. Oberman and his translator, etc. Thus, we still have an issue of trust: who is the better, more accurate translator? What is the more sensible course for the non-German reader to take? If I have to trust someone, I’m gonna trust the Luther scholar, even over a (no doubt) fine Lutheran pastor such as yourself.

    It’s the absurdity of the endless regress of private judgment and second-guessing, which is precisely the problem in the Protestant rule of faith, that has never been anywhere near resolved. I just finished a book about the falsity and radically circular nature of sola Scriptura.

    At some point, all of us have to rely on scholarship in areas that we ourselves are not informed enough to understand on our own. Ecclesiology works the same way, but with grace and faith also the key. The Church was set up (by God) with bishops and apostolic succession, and councils, and (ducking tomatoes) popes, so that there could be a finality of judgment, rather than the chaos of denominationalism that we see. There is authority. It can’t just be a book. Someone always has to interpret it; then it is a matter of competing interpretations.

    If it is a choice between Joe Everyman Protestant and What he is Subjectively Convinced the Bible Teaches (fiducial faith), or even Self-Proclaimed Pseudo-Prophet Luther vs. e.g., the unbroken teaching of the Catholic Church, as seen in the Bible, apostles, fathers, doctors, scholastics, and on to our present day; sorry, I will go with the latter, since Holy Spirit-guided biblical, ecclesiastical tradition and the consensus of history and universality trump private subjectivism every time.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    As a further reductio, your scenario would mean that every reader of a book on Luther becomes in effect the expert who can sit in judgment on the scholar who translates Luther in a certain fashion. Rather than trusting the Luther scholar (the one who has devoted his life to his task, and who has devoured and mastered many hundreds of related books and as many scholarly articles), who is quite capable of translation, we all rely on ourselves.

    So now Cole or Bainton or McGrath or Plass or all the rest aren’t good enough to be trusted for their Luther renderings and Dan Kempin or anyone else who knows German must step in to constantly verify.

    But how is that an improvement in anything? All that means is that it is now Kempin’s judgment vs. Bainton, or Kempin vs. Oberman and his translator, etc. Thus, we still have an issue of trust: who is the better, more accurate translator? What is the more sensible course for the non-German reader to take? If I have to trust someone, I’m gonna trust the Luther scholar, even over a (no doubt) fine Lutheran pastor such as yourself.

    It’s the absurdity of the endless regress of private judgment and second-guessing, which is precisely the problem in the Protestant rule of faith, that has never been anywhere near resolved. I just finished a book about the falsity and radically circular nature of sola Scriptura.

    At some point, all of us have to rely on scholarship in areas that we ourselves are not informed enough to understand on our own. Ecclesiology works the same way, but with grace and faith also the key. The Church was set up (by God) with bishops and apostolic succession, and councils, and (ducking tomatoes) popes, so that there could be a finality of judgment, rather than the chaos of denominationalism that we see. There is authority. It can’t just be a book. Someone always has to interpret it; then it is a matter of competing interpretations.

    If it is a choice between Joe Everyman Protestant and What he is Subjectively Convinced the Bible Teaches (fiducial faith), or even Self-Proclaimed Pseudo-Prophet Luther vs. e.g., the unbroken teaching of the Catholic Church, as seen in the Bible, apostles, fathers, doctors, scholastics, and on to our present day; sorry, I will go with the latter, since Holy Spirit-guided biblical, ecclesiastical tradition and the consensus of history and universality trump private subjectivism every time.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@177, 178, 179, 180, 181), whoa whoa whoa there, cowboy!

    Yes, we’re happy to have you here — well, I am; I can’t speak for everyone else, though I’d like to — as we don’t have too many Catholic voices, much less ones who are as informed as you.

    If you do stick around, you will of course discover that this blog also attracts some fairly “virulently anti-Catholic” types of its own. Perhaps not surprisingly, it’s not so much the Lutherans, though the Lutherans are anti-Catholicism, as it were, in the ways you would expect. Not a small number of pastors can be found here and there.

    But please, don’t import here whatever battles you may have ongoing elsewhere. You can continue those debates at the places where they started. As you can see, we already have enough to deal with when Grace attempts (usually successfully) to turn any post about Luther into one of her ill-informed lectures about Luther/Lutheranism, replete with spurious quotes.

    I have followed a policy for over four years now, of not wasting my time trying to debate anti-Catholics

    Yes, well, no credit for you today, as you’re clearly “wasting your time” debating one of your “anti-Catholic” arch-nemeses right here on this blog.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@177, 178, 179, 180, 181), whoa whoa whoa there, cowboy!

    Yes, we’re happy to have you here — well, I am; I can’t speak for everyone else, though I’d like to — as we don’t have too many Catholic voices, much less ones who are as informed as you.

    If you do stick around, you will of course discover that this blog also attracts some fairly “virulently anti-Catholic” types of its own. Perhaps not surprisingly, it’s not so much the Lutherans, though the Lutherans are anti-Catholicism, as it were, in the ways you would expect. Not a small number of pastors can be found here and there.

    But please, don’t import here whatever battles you may have ongoing elsewhere. You can continue those debates at the places where they started. As you can see, we already have enough to deal with when Grace attempts (usually successfully) to turn any post about Luther into one of her ill-informed lectures about Luther/Lutheranism, replete with spurious quotes.

    I have followed a policy for over four years now, of not wasting my time trying to debate anti-Catholics

    Yes, well, no credit for you today, as you’re clearly “wasting your time” debating one of your “anti-Catholic” arch-nemeses right here on this blog.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I didn’t “import” the battle here. Swan chose to come here (no one dragged him in), knowing full well that it was an opportunity for him to cast aspersions (for the umpteenth time) on my work, because I did make a mistake that I fessed up to. It’s no coincidence that he showed up exactly when I did.

    But I wasn’t gonna put up with his tactics without at least some protest. I won’t mention him again. If he keeps coming around, I won’t. It’s as simple as that. We’ve been able to have some good discussion for the most part, and if that is ruined by a hostile party or parties, I have better things to do, just as you do.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I didn’t “import” the battle here. Swan chose to come here (no one dragged him in), knowing full well that it was an opportunity for him to cast aspersions (for the umpteenth time) on my work, because I did make a mistake that I fessed up to. It’s no coincidence that he showed up exactly when I did.

    But I wasn’t gonna put up with his tactics without at least some protest. I won’t mention him again. If he keeps coming around, I won’t. It’s as simple as that. We’ve been able to have some good discussion for the most part, and if that is ruined by a hostile party or parties, I have better things to do, just as you do.

  • Grace

    James @ 173

    “No, I don’t plan on hanging around. I have though been thoroughly entertained, especially by post #160.”

    I too, found it amusing, but not surprised.

  • Grace

    James @ 173

    “No, I don’t plan on hanging around. I have though been thoroughly entertained, especially by post #160.”

    I too, found it amusing, but not surprised.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@183):

    I didn’t “import” the battle here.

    Come on. Allow me to quote you (@177):

    …the multi-part series he recently hosted on his blog, in which it was contended with a straight face that Pope Benedict XVI was a pantheist, or his six “book reviews” of my volume, Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin, in which the author’s name (yours truly) is never mentioned, or by his regular ramshackle treatments of my research on his blog, while I am banned there and can never respond to anything…

    In addition to your extended riffing on your tiff over “High German”. None of that was remotely relevant to the discussion here. You brought it all up.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@183):

    I didn’t “import” the battle here.

    Come on. Allow me to quote you (@177):

    …the multi-part series he recently hosted on his blog, in which it was contended with a straight face that Pope Benedict XVI was a pantheist, or his six “book reviews” of my volume, Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin, in which the author’s name (yours truly) is never mentioned, or by his regular ramshackle treatments of my research on his blog, while I am banned there and can never respond to anything…

    In addition to your extended riffing on your tiff over “High German”. None of that was remotely relevant to the discussion here. You brought it all up.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Whatever. You’re going on about it now, not me. I could just as well say that your repeated rants against Grace (justified or no) are equally off the subject. If you don’t care for her posts, just ignore her, too (I know it’s hard, but then you should understand my reaction to my severest critic online, shouldn’t you?). This entire thread was off the subject (pope and Luther, remember?). But no one seemed to care, did they?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Whatever. You’re going on about it now, not me. I could just as well say that your repeated rants against Grace (justified or no) are equally off the subject. If you don’t care for her posts, just ignore her, too (I know it’s hard, but then you should understand my reaction to my severest critic online, shouldn’t you?). This entire thread was off the subject (pope and Luther, remember?). But no one seemed to care, did they?

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    I’m not going to defend myself against all the mud hurled my way on multiple subjects. If any here choose to believe it, that’s fine. Ask yourself this though: what more have I done than simply providing 1 citation from LW, and then citing Cole? When someone starts shouting loudly to stir up a mob, ask yourself if you’re the type that presumes guilt before a fair hearing. If you are, then go ahead and believe about me whatever you wish.

    In regard to Cole. Coincidences are such strange things. As I scrolled through this discussion while having lunch yesterday, I saw talk about Roman Catholic authors Hartmann Grisar, Patrick O’Hare, Janssen as possible sources. Then later I read about ” different editions of Luther’s Works” as the explanation. Then I saw a forced analysis of the quote being from Luther’s Exposition of the Magnificat. Then I saw around 6:40 PM how “difficult to track down” the source of the quote was. Then around 7:40 PM it was posted that one “spent a few hours trying to track something down that occurred 17 or more years ago” and that it was “the old college try, and that it is a piece of lost information.”

    Now, who introduced Cole into this discussion? As far as I’ve followed this, no one did until I mentioned it. Coincidences are such strange things.

    Beware the theologians of glory!

    James Swan

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    I’m not going to defend myself against all the mud hurled my way on multiple subjects. If any here choose to believe it, that’s fine. Ask yourself this though: what more have I done than simply providing 1 citation from LW, and then citing Cole? When someone starts shouting loudly to stir up a mob, ask yourself if you’re the type that presumes guilt before a fair hearing. If you are, then go ahead and believe about me whatever you wish.

    In regard to Cole. Coincidences are such strange things. As I scrolled through this discussion while having lunch yesterday, I saw talk about Roman Catholic authors Hartmann Grisar, Patrick O’Hare, Janssen as possible sources. Then later I read about ” different editions of Luther’s Works” as the explanation. Then I saw a forced analysis of the quote being from Luther’s Exposition of the Magnificat. Then I saw around 6:40 PM how “difficult to track down” the source of the quote was. Then around 7:40 PM it was posted that one “spent a few hours trying to track something down that occurred 17 or more years ago” and that it was “the old college try, and that it is a piece of lost information.”

    Now, who introduced Cole into this discussion? As far as I’ve followed this, no one did until I mentioned it. Coincidences are such strange things.

    Beware the theologians of glory!

    James Swan

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave, #178,

    “At some point the scholar has to be trusted to know what he is doing, and for accurate translation of primary texts.”

    I disagree. I disagree thoroughly.

    Look, when there is no English translation, then of course it is appropriate to cite the German or Latin. If a book is being edited for an English reader, then the footnotes to the original text may be retained without inserting foreign text into an English book. I assure you, though, that in a scholarly paper, it is appropriate to include the text cited. I guess I thought you wanted to have a scholarly conversation. Since you posted no less than four lengthy replies to a rather incidental point, I wonder if this does not touch some type of nerve.

    Over and out.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave, #178,

    “At some point the scholar has to be trusted to know what he is doing, and for accurate translation of primary texts.”

    I disagree. I disagree thoroughly.

    Look, when there is no English translation, then of course it is appropriate to cite the German or Latin. If a book is being edited for an English reader, then the footnotes to the original text may be retained without inserting foreign text into an English book. I assure you, though, that in a scholarly paper, it is appropriate to include the text cited. I guess I thought you wanted to have a scholarly conversation. Since you posted no less than four lengthy replies to a rather incidental point, I wonder if this does not touch some type of nerve.

    Over and out.

  • Grace

    Dan @175

    “I gather that your father has gone to be with the Lord. As a lover of old books and a pastor, I hope that the handling of his old books brings back many fond memories as you long for the day you will see him again. Though we have differed in some points of discussion, I respect the way you have honored your father and the faith he has instilled in you.”

    Thank you for your kind words. When I was about 10, my father had a special series on Martin Luther (Wednesday nights) I never missed one – it was very interesting. I am looking forward to once again, going through my fathers books. At this point, I’m looking for a number of things, Martin Luther being one of them.

    I love old Bibles, … just this morning I went through a box of different books, and other things from one of my mothers cousins. In it was a very rare old Bible in German, dating back to the 17th century. It appears after going through a very old scrape book, pictures too, it belonged to my who knows, how great……. grandfather. It was signed by his name, and below that, was written Michelfeld-Sinsheim, Baden – he must have recieved it before sailing for America.

    About 20 years ago, my mother gifted me with a Bible from the 17th century, very large. A friend of hers had given it to her, (it had been in here family for all that time) as she had no one else left in her family. In it were lovely little notes, grammar school report card, marriage and death dates, etc. Very touching to handle such precious papers from a bygone era, but much more joyful to read the passages of Scripture that had been read a very long time ago.

  • Grace

    Dan @175

    “I gather that your father has gone to be with the Lord. As a lover of old books and a pastor, I hope that the handling of his old books brings back many fond memories as you long for the day you will see him again. Though we have differed in some points of discussion, I respect the way you have honored your father and the faith he has instilled in you.”

    Thank you for your kind words. When I was about 10, my father had a special series on Martin Luther (Wednesday nights) I never missed one – it was very interesting. I am looking forward to once again, going through my fathers books. At this point, I’m looking for a number of things, Martin Luther being one of them.

    I love old Bibles, … just this morning I went through a box of different books, and other things from one of my mothers cousins. In it was a very rare old Bible in German, dating back to the 17th century. It appears after going through a very old scrape book, pictures too, it belonged to my who knows, how great……. grandfather. It was signed by his name, and below that, was written Michelfeld-Sinsheim, Baden – he must have recieved it before sailing for America.

    About 20 years ago, my mother gifted me with a Bible from the 17th century, very large. A friend of hers had given it to her, (it had been in here family for all that time) as she had no one else left in her family. In it were lovely little notes, grammar school report card, marriage and death dates, etc. Very touching to handle such precious papers from a bygone era, but much more joyful to read the passages of Scripture that had been read a very long time ago.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@186) said:

    Whatever. You’re going on about it now, not me.

    Fascinating. A sentence that, by virtue of your writing it, becomes false.

    I could just as well say that your repeated rants against Grace (justified or no) are equally off the subject.

    Indeed you could. You could even note that Grace’s having inserted the Luther “quote” that brought you here was, itself, off-topic. In fact, it was pretty much unrelated to the foregoing conversation, whereas my replies to her were, you may notice, very much related to the foregoing conversation, since I was replying to her. But if you just want to focus on my role, you can.

    Problem is, I didn’t complain about your being “off the subject”. I rarely do. Conversations wander — online ones all the more so — especially then they are many days old. As I wrote several days ago (@65):

    This is a thread that’s over a day old, and, as such things happen, has wandered on to various other topics (this often happens when Grace finds her way on to this blog) …

    I obviously didn’t complain about your adding relevant thoughts to where the conversation had meandered. Surely you noticed that. Grace made this a discussion about the Luther quote (an topic she is suddenly very quiet about … until she copies and pastes it again, I suppose), and we were all having a discussion about that.

    What I asked (@182) was that you not start dumping irrelevant complaints about someone who is not a frequenter of this blog (and has stated his intention to not be one in the future), based on conversations that happened entirely elsewhere, at some point in the past, especially when you’re simultaneously bragging about how you’re not interacting with such people.

    I choose to respond to Grace’s attacks on Luther on this blog because I’m part of the crowd here, and I don’t want others to be misled by the misinformation she spreads.

    But I don’t go over to your blog and complain about Grace’s tactics. Why would I? Who over there would care?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@186) said:

    Whatever. You’re going on about it now, not me.

    Fascinating. A sentence that, by virtue of your writing it, becomes false.

    I could just as well say that your repeated rants against Grace (justified or no) are equally off the subject.

    Indeed you could. You could even note that Grace’s having inserted the Luther “quote” that brought you here was, itself, off-topic. In fact, it was pretty much unrelated to the foregoing conversation, whereas my replies to her were, you may notice, very much related to the foregoing conversation, since I was replying to her. But if you just want to focus on my role, you can.

    Problem is, I didn’t complain about your being “off the subject”. I rarely do. Conversations wander — online ones all the more so — especially then they are many days old. As I wrote several days ago (@65):

    This is a thread that’s over a day old, and, as such things happen, has wandered on to various other topics (this often happens when Grace finds her way on to this blog) …

    I obviously didn’t complain about your adding relevant thoughts to where the conversation had meandered. Surely you noticed that. Grace made this a discussion about the Luther quote (an topic she is suddenly very quiet about … until she copies and pastes it again, I suppose), and we were all having a discussion about that.

    What I asked (@182) was that you not start dumping irrelevant complaints about someone who is not a frequenter of this blog (and has stated his intention to not be one in the future), based on conversations that happened entirely elsewhere, at some point in the past, especially when you’re simultaneously bragging about how you’re not interacting with such people.

    I choose to respond to Grace’s attacks on Luther on this blog because I’m part of the crowd here, and I don’t want others to be misled by the misinformation she spreads.

    But I don’t go over to your blog and complain about Grace’s tactics. Why would I? Who over there would care?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    See how it works? Now we are to believe that I am lying about finding Cole myself. It HAS to be; one can’t simply accept my report (I missed it the first time through, then caught it on the second perusal). If I hadn’t watched the Prohibition show mine would have been up first and this asinine nonsense couldn’t even be implied. But hey, that’s life. I love history documentaries.

    Sorry Todd. I meant it when I said I would ignore this stupid issue, but if the man now wants to imply (knowing that he is in the venue of his fellow Protestants, who will naturally tend to be biased in his favor) that I am lying through my teeth, and once again had to rely on his amazing research brilliance, I must have the right to at least mildly protest it.

    It’s always this way with him: I must be a liar, an incompetent stooge, a nutcase, a narcissist. It couldn’t possibly be otherwise. He’s convinced that I stole Cole from him.

    I was the one who utilized that article 17 years ago before he didn’t know the man from a hole in the ground. I simply had to locate a quote (it wasn’t highlighted, which is one reason why I missed it: most stuff I use from photocopies was highlighted). So he beat me to the punch because I watched a TV show. That proves I am a liar who stole the information from him and pretended that it wasn’t the case (according to his take).

    The true fact of the matter, is that I was challenged strongly by Todd, backed up by Dan, to find this source, so (determined, stubborn Scot that I am), I went back through stuff after my show was over, and found it in the original article.

    Yes, I also appeal to fair-minded folks here, too. Do you want to believe a guy who is given to classifying folks who disagree with him as literally mentally ill (he has done that repeatedly; it’s not simply a matter of losing temper or mere epithets), that I lied about actually finding Cole, or do you see my honest effort to get to the bottom of this matter, which I did, in the course of a day, including an upfront confession of an honest mistake, that is now prominently on display on my blog?

    I’ve been complimented on my research here by two people, so now does it make the slightest sense to believe that I entirely fabricated a tall tale about finding the lost source (maybe I didn’t watch the TV show, too: that’s also a lie?), and that I actually stole it from ol’ Jimbo, who is (he never tires of pointing out) the font of all knowledge where Luther is concerned?

    It was necessary to present some of the ugly history because it was certain that our friend came here in an effort to smear my name and my research. And now anyone can see why I felt it necessary to explain his animus. He is proving my point by calling me a bald-faced liar, in his usual condescending, pompous way (“Now, who introduced Cole into this discussion? . . . Coincidences are such strange things”).

    The “theologians of glory” thing is his way of saying that I am only out for myself, in my apologetics career. I care little about God, about education, about matters of faith and Christianity, or the gospel. I don’t have a real job and am not an apologist (after eight published books with real publishers), so he thinks. It’s all about me and my supposed “glory” — so he tells his readers. He’s said it 50 times if he has once. He feels perfectly able to judge my heart and motivations for what I do, as well as (erroneously, over and over) my research.

    I get tired of the slander and the lies, and it’s just not in me to turn the other cheek when being lied about in public venues. Even St. Paul defended himself at his trial. Turning the other cheek is not an absolute. And truth-telling and exposing smears and lies is a good thing.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    See how it works? Now we are to believe that I am lying about finding Cole myself. It HAS to be; one can’t simply accept my report (I missed it the first time through, then caught it on the second perusal). If I hadn’t watched the Prohibition show mine would have been up first and this asinine nonsense couldn’t even be implied. But hey, that’s life. I love history documentaries.

    Sorry Todd. I meant it when I said I would ignore this stupid issue, but if the man now wants to imply (knowing that he is in the venue of his fellow Protestants, who will naturally tend to be biased in his favor) that I am lying through my teeth, and once again had to rely on his amazing research brilliance, I must have the right to at least mildly protest it.

    It’s always this way with him: I must be a liar, an incompetent stooge, a nutcase, a narcissist. It couldn’t possibly be otherwise. He’s convinced that I stole Cole from him.

    I was the one who utilized that article 17 years ago before he didn’t know the man from a hole in the ground. I simply had to locate a quote (it wasn’t highlighted, which is one reason why I missed it: most stuff I use from photocopies was highlighted). So he beat me to the punch because I watched a TV show. That proves I am a liar who stole the information from him and pretended that it wasn’t the case (according to his take).

    The true fact of the matter, is that I was challenged strongly by Todd, backed up by Dan, to find this source, so (determined, stubborn Scot that I am), I went back through stuff after my show was over, and found it in the original article.

    Yes, I also appeal to fair-minded folks here, too. Do you want to believe a guy who is given to classifying folks who disagree with him as literally mentally ill (he has done that repeatedly; it’s not simply a matter of losing temper or mere epithets), that I lied about actually finding Cole, or do you see my honest effort to get to the bottom of this matter, which I did, in the course of a day, including an upfront confession of an honest mistake, that is now prominently on display on my blog?

    I’ve been complimented on my research here by two people, so now does it make the slightest sense to believe that I entirely fabricated a tall tale about finding the lost source (maybe I didn’t watch the TV show, too: that’s also a lie?), and that I actually stole it from ol’ Jimbo, who is (he never tires of pointing out) the font of all knowledge where Luther is concerned?

    It was necessary to present some of the ugly history because it was certain that our friend came here in an effort to smear my name and my research. And now anyone can see why I felt it necessary to explain his animus. He is proving my point by calling me a bald-faced liar, in his usual condescending, pompous way (“Now, who introduced Cole into this discussion? . . . Coincidences are such strange things”).

    The “theologians of glory” thing is his way of saying that I am only out for myself, in my apologetics career. I care little about God, about education, about matters of faith and Christianity, or the gospel. I don’t have a real job and am not an apologist (after eight published books with real publishers), so he thinks. It’s all about me and my supposed “glory” — so he tells his readers. He’s said it 50 times if he has once. He feels perfectly able to judge my heart and motivations for what I do, as well as (erroneously, over and over) my research.

    I get tired of the slander and the lies, and it’s just not in me to turn the other cheek when being lied about in public venues. Even St. Paul defended himself at his trial. Turning the other cheek is not an absolute. And truth-telling and exposing smears and lies is a good thing.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Okay, Todd. I grant your whole thing about importing feuds into this forum. Mea culpa.

    Now we have a quite different scenario, that I just responded to, where Swan is implying in so many words that I am lying through my own teeth about finding my own source (because he also found it). This had to do, not with our history of acrimony, but with the discussion that went on in this very blog, that occupied me all day yesterday. You yourself witnessed what happened.

    That was not “imported” at all. He says I am lying; I am denying it and detesting the smear. Readers may judge. But my responding to that has nothing to do with your objection that I brought an extraneous fight into the forum. Now it is a matter of his coming into the existing discussion and eventually calling me a liar. I knew that he would either do that or somehow show that I am an imbecilic dunce, because he’s always done that. But you guys didn’t know that. Now you do. You just saw it before your eyes.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Okay, Todd. I grant your whole thing about importing feuds into this forum. Mea culpa.

    Now we have a quite different scenario, that I just responded to, where Swan is implying in so many words that I am lying through my own teeth about finding my own source (because he also found it). This had to do, not with our history of acrimony, but with the discussion that went on in this very blog, that occupied me all day yesterday. You yourself witnessed what happened.

    That was not “imported” at all. He says I am lying; I am denying it and detesting the smear. Readers may judge. But my responding to that has nothing to do with your objection that I brought an extraneous fight into the forum. Now it is a matter of his coming into the existing discussion and eventually calling me a liar. I knew that he would either do that or somehow show that I am an imbecilic dunce, because he’s always done that. But you guys didn’t know that. Now you do. You just saw it before your eyes.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I assure you, though, that in a scholarly paper, it is appropriate to include the text cited.

    I noted that this might apply to “ultra-scholarly” work. But this proves too much, because by this criterion, Oberman, Bainton, Althaus, and McGrath, all must be non-scholars or acting in ways contrary to their field and responsibilities, since they don’t so that in wildly used books having to do with Luther.

    I guess I thought you wanted to have a scholarly conversation.

    I’m not a scholar. I’m merely noting how scholars have acted, and asking you to explain it, given your expressed opinion. Counter-examples . . .

    Since you posted no less than four lengthy replies to a rather incidental point, I wonder if this does not touch some type of nerve.

    I’m animated. I love good discussion. I’m passionate about ideas; period. You need not resort to psychological speculation. I have no “nerve” on this. I was simply challenging your root assumptions; found it an interesting discussion to ponder. You challenged me to “put up or shut up” yesterday on the quote, and I produced it. You said that was what good scholarly-type discussion was about.

    So I am doing the same back to you, but you don’t wanna talk about it, and now appeal to my supposed “nerves” when it is simply a principled disagreement about a fairly minor point (as you grant, calling it “technical ” over and over). C’mon. You can do far better than that. Can you defend your expressed view or not?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I assure you, though, that in a scholarly paper, it is appropriate to include the text cited.

    I noted that this might apply to “ultra-scholarly” work. But this proves too much, because by this criterion, Oberman, Bainton, Althaus, and McGrath, all must be non-scholars or acting in ways contrary to their field and responsibilities, since they don’t so that in wildly used books having to do with Luther.

    I guess I thought you wanted to have a scholarly conversation.

    I’m not a scholar. I’m merely noting how scholars have acted, and asking you to explain it, given your expressed opinion. Counter-examples . . .

    Since you posted no less than four lengthy replies to a rather incidental point, I wonder if this does not touch some type of nerve.

    I’m animated. I love good discussion. I’m passionate about ideas; period. You need not resort to psychological speculation. I have no “nerve” on this. I was simply challenging your root assumptions; found it an interesting discussion to ponder. You challenged me to “put up or shut up” yesterday on the quote, and I produced it. You said that was what good scholarly-type discussion was about.

    So I am doing the same back to you, but you don’t wanna talk about it, and now appeal to my supposed “nerves” when it is simply a principled disagreement about a fairly minor point (as you grant, calling it “technical ” over and over). C’mon. You can do far better than that. Can you defend your expressed view or not?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    “don’t so that in wildly used books” above should be:

    “don’t DO that in widely used books.” LOL

    Was in a hurry . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    “don’t so that in wildly used books” above should be:

    “don’t DO that in widely used books.” LOL

    Was in a hurry . . .

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@191, 192), I thanked both you and James for tracking down the origin of the botched Luther “quote”. That’s all I really feel like saying about the matter.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@191, 192), I thanked both you and James for tracking down the origin of the botched Luther “quote”. That’s all I really feel like saying about the matter.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Well, in this (very Lutheran, Protestant) venue, I truly am thankful for “neutrality.” I appreciate it. Of course, if you thanked me for tracking it down, obviously you didn’t think I merely snatched it. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Well, in this (very Lutheran, Protestant) venue, I truly am thankful for “neutrality.” I appreciate it. Of course, if you thanked me for tracking it down, obviously you didn’t think I merely snatched it. :-)

  • Dust

    Tom at 161…..what’s new pussycat? You still find this fascinating, or now even more fascinating?

  • Dust

    Tom at 161…..what’s new pussycat? You still find this fascinating, or now even more fascinating?

  • Dust

    Tom at 161….even more fascinating now?

  • Dust

    Tom at 161….even more fascinating now?

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave,

    As an epilogue, I will make an observation.

    What I said: “You know, when quoting Luther in English you should really cite an English edition.”

    What you apparently heard: “YOU ARE A DROOLING CATHOLIC IDOLATER WHO IS NO SCHOLAR AND I DON’T WANT TO TALK TO YOU!

    Okay, overstatement . . . but to make a point. You seem rather quick to the defense. There is no animus here.

    And I am not bowing out of the conversation because I haven’t enjoyed it, but because I have already overspent my time budget for blog comments by quite a bit. So to quote my own earlier final comment:

    “It has been fun, Dave. I hope we see you around here again.”

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave,

    As an epilogue, I will make an observation.

    What I said: “You know, when quoting Luther in English you should really cite an English edition.”

    What you apparently heard: “YOU ARE A DROOLING CATHOLIC IDOLATER WHO IS NO SCHOLAR AND I DON’T WANT TO TALK TO YOU!

    Okay, overstatement . . . but to make a point. You seem rather quick to the defense. There is no animus here.

    And I am not bowing out of the conversation because I haven’t enjoyed it, but because I have already overspent my time budget for blog comments by quite a bit. So to quote my own earlier final comment:

    “It has been fun, Dave. I hope we see you around here again.”

  • Tom Hering

    Dust @ 197, even more fascinating now? No, just human … all too human.

  • Tom Hering

    Dust @ 197, even more fascinating now? No, just human … all too human.

  • Tom Hering

    I get 200!

  • Tom Hering

    I get 200!

  • Dust

    Tom at 200…you deserve it, but it’s a bit more than just human, and wish you would analyze and comment more! What’s wrong with you? Cat got your tongue :)

  • Dust

    Tom at 200…you deserve it, but it’s a bit more than just human, and wish you would analyze and comment more! What’s wrong with you? Cat got your tongue :)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Anyone know any good jokes?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Anyone know any good jokes?

  • Grace

    BIG DEAL Tom, I got 100, that’s even better! :lol:

  • Grace

    BIG DEAL Tom, I got 100, that’s even better! :lol:

  • Grace

    You’re in a good mood Dave, did you have a tall ale? ;)

  • Grace

    You’re in a good mood Dave, did you have a tall ale? ;)

  • Grace

    Dust, don’t egg him on, it’s bad enough as it is :)

  • Grace

    Dust, don’t egg him on, it’s bad enough as it is :)

  • Tom Hering

    Okay, so a Catholic, a liberal Lutheran, and a conservative Lutheran walk into an ecumenical conference. The Catholic and the liberal Lutheran hand a joint declaration on the doctrine of justification to the conservative Lutheran, and he says, “Is this a joke?”

  • Tom Hering

    Okay, so a Catholic, a liberal Lutheran, and a conservative Lutheran walk into an ecumenical conference. The Catholic and the liberal Lutheran hand a joint declaration on the doctrine of justification to the conservative Lutheran, and he says, “Is this a joke?”

  • Dust

    OK, so the Catholic says “You might call it that, but we prefer to call it Papal Bull” :)

  • Dust

    OK, so the Catholic says “You might call it that, but we prefer to call it Papal Bull” :)

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Dear David Armstrong,

    1. This whole discussion would be the thing which Mary would abhor with people whipping themselves up and over the veneration of herself. Have we not heard what she is saying? She bore CHRIST. Talk about CHRIST.

    Not her. And not about yourself.

    2. Let’s leave aside for now all the times you speak about yourself, your books, etc. and briefly look also at how you cast aspersions on others. We are not all completely stupid or ignorant here. We have heard of James Swan here before and the level of your own scholarship is open here for all to assess. Let facts speak for themselves. We can think. You do not need to fill us in on all your past grievances to help us form a judgement. It really, truly, is not necessary.

    3. On the topic of James Swan, two things. Just to note in passing only one inaccuracy (something “apologists” can’t really afford). It was not James who wrote about the pope and pantheism. I participated in this thread and know how quickly this matter was addressed and resolved. No need to bring it up or to pin it on James Swan. Secondly, when James examines some sources he actually asks German speakers to look things over for him and translate for him. He has asked me several times whether a particular line is contained in various versions, etc. It can be researched. It is possible. It’s not even hard. With the internet you could ask many people. I even translate what the pope said in German for Roman Catholics.

    3. As Dan Kempin pointed out several times, to know what Luther actually says, you need to get not only to the sources but back to German. As I just said this is what scholars actually do. They not only read the sources and everything in context, they do know or learn German and read it in German. It is possible. It is probably taught in a High School near you. Even in evening classes. Which you could even possibly start taking yourself.

    4. Which leads us to the not very difficult logical conclusion that the many untranslated works do not contain some “hidden” travesties which the world is being shielded from. There are actually many millions of German speakers, today, in the world. Just a reminder. We are not speaking of ancient hieroglyphics.

    Luther spoke and wrote freely for the whole world to read. And he has been heard and read. Your expectation that there should be a whole bunch more dirt that we don’t yet know about does communicate something, also.

    5. One more time, something that has been said so many times, which for some reason hardly ever seems to be understood. We are not called “Lutheran” because of allegiance to every word ever penned by Martin Luther. He is not our pope. He is not our magisterium. The parallel thinking, here, does not apply. If you really want to discuss doctrine with us, you will need to get it from scripture or the confessional writings and then we can talk. We say this over and over, but hardly anyone ever does this.

    Like Paul, and Mary, Luther wanted to know nothing besides Christ and him crucified for our redemption.

    Even Pope Benedict realizes this and talks about this. Maybe we can all stick with the program.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Dear David Armstrong,

    1. This whole discussion would be the thing which Mary would abhor with people whipping themselves up and over the veneration of herself. Have we not heard what she is saying? She bore CHRIST. Talk about CHRIST.

    Not her. And not about yourself.

    2. Let’s leave aside for now all the times you speak about yourself, your books, etc. and briefly look also at how you cast aspersions on others. We are not all completely stupid or ignorant here. We have heard of James Swan here before and the level of your own scholarship is open here for all to assess. Let facts speak for themselves. We can think. You do not need to fill us in on all your past grievances to help us form a judgement. It really, truly, is not necessary.

    3. On the topic of James Swan, two things. Just to note in passing only one inaccuracy (something “apologists” can’t really afford). It was not James who wrote about the pope and pantheism. I participated in this thread and know how quickly this matter was addressed and resolved. No need to bring it up or to pin it on James Swan. Secondly, when James examines some sources he actually asks German speakers to look things over for him and translate for him. He has asked me several times whether a particular line is contained in various versions, etc. It can be researched. It is possible. It’s not even hard. With the internet you could ask many people. I even translate what the pope said in German for Roman Catholics.

    3. As Dan Kempin pointed out several times, to know what Luther actually says, you need to get not only to the sources but back to German. As I just said this is what scholars actually do. They not only read the sources and everything in context, they do know or learn German and read it in German. It is possible. It is probably taught in a High School near you. Even in evening classes. Which you could even possibly start taking yourself.

    4. Which leads us to the not very difficult logical conclusion that the many untranslated works do not contain some “hidden” travesties which the world is being shielded from. There are actually many millions of German speakers, today, in the world. Just a reminder. We are not speaking of ancient hieroglyphics.

    Luther spoke and wrote freely for the whole world to read. And he has been heard and read. Your expectation that there should be a whole bunch more dirt that we don’t yet know about does communicate something, also.

    5. One more time, something that has been said so many times, which for some reason hardly ever seems to be understood. We are not called “Lutheran” because of allegiance to every word ever penned by Martin Luther. He is not our pope. He is not our magisterium. The parallel thinking, here, does not apply. If you really want to discuss doctrine with us, you will need to get it from scripture or the confessional writings and then we can talk. We say this over and over, but hardly anyone ever does this.

    Like Paul, and Mary, Luther wanted to know nothing besides Christ and him crucified for our redemption.

    Even Pope Benedict realizes this and talks about this. Maybe we can all stick with the program.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Brigitte,

    Thanks for the sermon. Do you, too, think I lied through my teeth when I said that I found the source in Cole that I originally utilized in 1994? That is your friend’s position. I’m just curious what yours is.

    Now to your other points by number:

    1. I have defended CHRIST and CHRISTIANITY for thirty years, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic, often at great cost in many different ways. I don’t need YOU or anyone else to lecture me on the centrality of Jesus Christ. I’ve devoted my whole life to serving Him as a disciple, since 1977, as an apologist, missionary, evangelist, and pro-life activist. There are other topics, too, though. Luther preached eighty sermons on Mary, so it was not a complete non-issue for him.

    As for “talking about myself”: I did not make myself the issue. My name was mentioned here in a negative fashion (and I was not informed in courtesy, as usual). Your buddy regularly slanders my name and work on his site, but as you know, I am not allowed to comment there. This site is classy enough to allow and even welcome a different perspective, so I had the chance to give my side (bravo, guys!). I may be detested by some here, but that is free speech, ain’t it?

    Dan Kempin initially said my goal was to slander Luther. He has since retracted that and apologized. Todd said (indirectly) that I was involved in fabricating quotations. He backed off, too, and apologized (seeing that I was very different from “anti-Luther” sites he has run across). But I had to talk about that. Now Swan has called me a bald-faced liar (right in this thread), again making it about me, and not the topic at hand (and I challenge you to take a stand on that). I’m supposed to take all that and sit here silently? I mentioned my past history with him, precisely because I knew he had personal motives, coming here at all (to somehow attack my work or character, as he now has). His behavior verified that and showed why I mentioned all the past nonsense in the first place. He poses as this great expert on Luther and ultra-superior to me in knowledge, and it simply isn’t so.

    2. I mentioned my book on Luther, to note that it was one-third “ecumenical.” Even you, I think , would appreciate that. As for “casting aspersions,” I have said several times that I enjoy dialogue with Lutherans, and have mostly enjoyed my time here. we had some friction, but that was cleared up. I have mentioned other books. That is not automatically vain. The webmaster here mentions his 18 books on the top of his sidebar. All authors do that. That is no more vain than your mentioning all your skills in German. It’s a non sequitur. But it’s great to include when you are trying to generate a picture of my supposed overall character, isn’t it?

    3. (both) I agree that it would be good to know German to study Luther. I don’t think it is absolutely necessary to understand his teachings, anymore than one must absolutely know Greek or Hebrew to understand the Bible. This is the whole point of translations. St. Augustine (iirc) didn’t know Hebrew, and possibly not even Greek. If you’re so gung-ho on the original sources, why don’t you do us all a favor and check all the pages that Cole listed under WA? I would greatly appreciate that, myself, whatever you think of me.

    I’m not a “language guy” myself. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I have immense admiration for those who know other languages. One of my best friends has a masters in linguistics. Swan poses as this great expert on Luther’s works in German and talks about knowing the original source, but he doesn’t know German himself, as far as I know. He didn’t even know what High German and Low German meant. It’s the pretense that I detest. I will say straight out if I know nothing or relatively little about something, rather than pretend to be what I am not.

    4. You exaggerate. I merely made the point that there are many untranslated works of Luther (and Swan initially denied that too, till I noted the new 20 volumes coming out). And it is undeniable that Lutherans have not been enthusiastic about presenting to the world in English some of Luther’s ranting and raving (I have seen statements to that effect made by editors of LW, iirc). E.g., his letter to Henry VIII wasn’t in the 55-volume set, but it is an important historical document.

    5. I’ve known this for at least 25 years, and mentioned it in this thread, so your time here is wasted on me. I agree with everything Pope Benedict XVI says about Luther. That is his function as pope: to focus on ecumenism. I am, too, which is why one-third of my Luther book was devoted to that. At the same time, the pope would say it is necessary also for Catholics to defend our distinctive beliefs and critique errors in other Christian belief-systems. No contradiction. Jesus did both; Paul did both. Even Luther had the rare ecumenical moment . . .

    In my in-box as I write is an extensive reply from a Lutheran, to my critique of Chemnitz. We get along perfectly fine. I have enjoyed many past dialogues with Lutherans. With a small minority, as in all classes of people, it is more difficult to get along (e.g., Paul McCain, who has always acted like a boor in our interactions, and has several put-downs on his site). But don’t generalize about my history with Lutherans. Like most of my severe critics, you know little or nothing about me. But you have plenty of false stereotypical notions in your head . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Brigitte,

    Thanks for the sermon. Do you, too, think I lied through my teeth when I said that I found the source in Cole that I originally utilized in 1994? That is your friend’s position. I’m just curious what yours is.

    Now to your other points by number:

    1. I have defended CHRIST and CHRISTIANITY for thirty years, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic, often at great cost in many different ways. I don’t need YOU or anyone else to lecture me on the centrality of Jesus Christ. I’ve devoted my whole life to serving Him as a disciple, since 1977, as an apologist, missionary, evangelist, and pro-life activist. There are other topics, too, though. Luther preached eighty sermons on Mary, so it was not a complete non-issue for him.

    As for “talking about myself”: I did not make myself the issue. My name was mentioned here in a negative fashion (and I was not informed in courtesy, as usual). Your buddy regularly slanders my name and work on his site, but as you know, I am not allowed to comment there. This site is classy enough to allow and even welcome a different perspective, so I had the chance to give my side (bravo, guys!). I may be detested by some here, but that is free speech, ain’t it?

    Dan Kempin initially said my goal was to slander Luther. He has since retracted that and apologized. Todd said (indirectly) that I was involved in fabricating quotations. He backed off, too, and apologized (seeing that I was very different from “anti-Luther” sites he has run across). But I had to talk about that. Now Swan has called me a bald-faced liar (right in this thread), again making it about me, and not the topic at hand (and I challenge you to take a stand on that). I’m supposed to take all that and sit here silently? I mentioned my past history with him, precisely because I knew he had personal motives, coming here at all (to somehow attack my work or character, as he now has). His behavior verified that and showed why I mentioned all the past nonsense in the first place. He poses as this great expert on Luther and ultra-superior to me in knowledge, and it simply isn’t so.

    2. I mentioned my book on Luther, to note that it was one-third “ecumenical.” Even you, I think , would appreciate that. As for “casting aspersions,” I have said several times that I enjoy dialogue with Lutherans, and have mostly enjoyed my time here. we had some friction, but that was cleared up. I have mentioned other books. That is not automatically vain. The webmaster here mentions his 18 books on the top of his sidebar. All authors do that. That is no more vain than your mentioning all your skills in German. It’s a non sequitur. But it’s great to include when you are trying to generate a picture of my supposed overall character, isn’t it?

    3. (both) I agree that it would be good to know German to study Luther. I don’t think it is absolutely necessary to understand his teachings, anymore than one must absolutely know Greek or Hebrew to understand the Bible. This is the whole point of translations. St. Augustine (iirc) didn’t know Hebrew, and possibly not even Greek. If you’re so gung-ho on the original sources, why don’t you do us all a favor and check all the pages that Cole listed under WA? I would greatly appreciate that, myself, whatever you think of me.

    I’m not a “language guy” myself. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I have immense admiration for those who know other languages. One of my best friends has a masters in linguistics. Swan poses as this great expert on Luther’s works in German and talks about knowing the original source, but he doesn’t know German himself, as far as I know. He didn’t even know what High German and Low German meant. It’s the pretense that I detest. I will say straight out if I know nothing or relatively little about something, rather than pretend to be what I am not.

    4. You exaggerate. I merely made the point that there are many untranslated works of Luther (and Swan initially denied that too, till I noted the new 20 volumes coming out). And it is undeniable that Lutherans have not been enthusiastic about presenting to the world in English some of Luther’s ranting and raving (I have seen statements to that effect made by editors of LW, iirc). E.g., his letter to Henry VIII wasn’t in the 55-volume set, but it is an important historical document.

    5. I’ve known this for at least 25 years, and mentioned it in this thread, so your time here is wasted on me. I agree with everything Pope Benedict XVI says about Luther. That is his function as pope: to focus on ecumenism. I am, too, which is why one-third of my Luther book was devoted to that. At the same time, the pope would say it is necessary also for Catholics to defend our distinctive beliefs and critique errors in other Christian belief-systems. No contradiction. Jesus did both; Paul did both. Even Luther had the rare ecumenical moment . . .

    In my in-box as I write is an extensive reply from a Lutheran, to my critique of Chemnitz. We get along perfectly fine. I have enjoyed many past dialogues with Lutherans. With a small minority, as in all classes of people, it is more difficult to get along (e.g., Paul McCain, who has always acted like a boor in our interactions, and has several put-downs on his site). But don’t generalize about my history with Lutherans. Like most of my severe critics, you know little or nothing about me. But you have plenty of false stereotypical notions in your head . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Oh, about the pope and pantheism thing. yes, swan didn;t write about it himself, But he hosted the discussions on his site for many months. They were written by a co-blogger there, John Bugay.

    It’s not much different to host rank nonsense and slander on one’s site for an extended period of time, than to agree with it. It shouldn’t be there at all. And I believe some of it is still on his site to this day, even though Bugay has departed, under pressure from other more sensible anti-Catholics who had a lick of sense. If yo want to deny that, I’ll start posting the URLs here.

    It will be pretty entertaining to see the pope being praised for his ecumenism towards Lutheranism, while at the same time maintaining that he is a pantheist.

    We Catholics have been called many names. But I was surprised that “pantheist” would be one of them. And Swan thinks that is fit material on his blog for public consumption and education.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Oh, about the pope and pantheism thing. yes, swan didn;t write about it himself, But he hosted the discussions on his site for many months. They were written by a co-blogger there, John Bugay.

    It’s not much different to host rank nonsense and slander on one’s site for an extended period of time, than to agree with it. It shouldn’t be there at all. And I believe some of it is still on his site to this day, even though Bugay has departed, under pressure from other more sensible anti-Catholics who had a lick of sense. If yo want to deny that, I’ll start posting the URLs here.

    It will be pretty entertaining to see the pope being praised for his ecumenism towards Lutheranism, while at the same time maintaining that he is a pantheist.

    We Catholics have been called many names. But I was surprised that “pantheist” would be one of them. And Swan thinks that is fit material on his blog for public consumption and education.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave, if I can interrupt for a moment, just thought I’d point you to a new thread that mentions you and discusses Mariology, with some comments addressed to you.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave, if I can interrupt for a moment, just thought I’d point you to a new thread that mentions you and discusses Mariology, with some comments addressed to you.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    David Armstrong, this much I agree: I have problems with what some people have authored on James Swan’s blog and what gets countenanced, but not generally with what he posts himself. I think he is someone whose opinion is valuable. That’s all we are interested in right now, if anything. And to be honest, as far as I have read him and yourself, I find his research infinitely more convincing.

    Whether or not you swiped his answer is mostly immaterial to the discussion and I am incompetent and have no motivation to judge. If this makes you feel better: at this point I have no particular reason to disbelieve you, aside from the fact that you have already had to clarify and retract some points, as well as keep having things hinge upon your experience and expertise in being an apologist and a book author. It is the preciseness, correctness and incisiveness of the answer which will convince not protesting ever more loudly.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    David Armstrong, this much I agree: I have problems with what some people have authored on James Swan’s blog and what gets countenanced, but not generally with what he posts himself. I think he is someone whose opinion is valuable. That’s all we are interested in right now, if anything. And to be honest, as far as I have read him and yourself, I find his research infinitely more convincing.

    Whether or not you swiped his answer is mostly immaterial to the discussion and I am incompetent and have no motivation to judge. If this makes you feel better: at this point I have no particular reason to disbelieve you, aside from the fact that you have already had to clarify and retract some points, as well as keep having things hinge upon your experience and expertise in being an apologist and a book author. It is the preciseness, correctness and incisiveness of the answer which will convince not protesting ever more loudly.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Thanks Todd. Hopefully, that thread can proceed without me being characterized by a latecomer to the discussion as a bald-faced liar, then I won’t have to defend, oops, “talk about” myself and get lectured for supposedly doing the latter, as if it weren’t provoked at all. :-) Then we can actually discuss the theological and historical issues, which is quite enjoyable.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Thanks Todd. Hopefully, that thread can proceed without me being characterized by a latecomer to the discussion as a bald-faced liar, then I won’t have to defend, oops, “talk about” myself and get lectured for supposedly doing the latter, as if it weren’t provoked at all. :-) Then we can actually discuss the theological and historical issues, which is quite enjoyable.

  • Dust

    Dave…that discussion could use your expertise, given of course, with a sensitivity for biases and prejudices of Lutherans and Protestants, we deserve some compassion too….I for one promise not to call you any names and/or make spurious accusations, in fact, have already recommended links to your books and website for good ideas and perspectives to chew on….hope you will reconsider and take another chance on the blog of veith :)

  • Dust

    Dave…that discussion could use your expertise, given of course, with a sensitivity for biases and prejudices of Lutherans and Protestants, we deserve some compassion too….I for one promise not to call you any names and/or make spurious accusations, in fact, have already recommended links to your books and website for good ideas and perspectives to chew on….hope you will reconsider and take another chance on the blog of veith :)

  • Tom Hering

    Re: Swan’s and Armstrong’s Cole posts.

    Even as rabid an anti-Catholic as myself ( :-D ) finds it hard to believe Mr. Armstrong could be so stupid as to think we’re so stupid we wouldn’t question his repetition of Swan’s finding. I give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a coincidence, and that he wouldn’t have posted the Cole material had he checked the thread before hitting the “submit” button. (Haven’t we all embarrassed ourselves that way here?)

  • Tom Hering

    Re: Swan’s and Armstrong’s Cole posts.

    Even as rabid an anti-Catholic as myself ( :-D ) finds it hard to believe Mr. Armstrong could be so stupid as to think we’re so stupid we wouldn’t question his repetition of Swan’s finding. I give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a coincidence, and that he wouldn’t have posted the Cole material had he checked the thread before hitting the “submit” button. (Haven’t we all embarrassed ourselves that way here?)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Of course I would have posted it, because it was my responsibility to do so. I was being strongly urged to produce the quotation, and I agreed. I had trouble finding it at first (because I hadn’t highlighted the portion I was looking for); then I did find it. It’s (partially) in a photocopy that has been part of my Luther files for some twenty years now.

    It was “my” source in the first place, in the sense that I found it in the library and may have also been the first to mention it on the Internet. I found it in 1994 and used it as a source in an article that was published twice in print (though it wasn’t mentioned in that article, which is why I had to look for it).

    I cited the article by full name in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which was completed in 1996, published on my own in 2001, and then by Sophia Institute Press in 2003. I cite Cole twice on p. 205 (also footnotes 213-214), and three times on p. 206 (footnotes 218, 220-221).

    Swan, on the other hand, in his long paper, “Martin Luther’s Theology of Mary” (with a revised appendix from July, 2003, so it was posted before that: sometime before 24 April 2003; see further below):

    http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary1.htm

    . . . never cites Cole, and appears to not know that the article exists, even though now he says (#158 above) that “the Cole article is extensive. It may be the lengthiest treatment of Luther’s Mariology in English.” He’s correct. Well, I found it long before he did (at least nine years earlier). It was mentioned in print in paperback in my first book in 2001. Here in 2003 Swan didn’t yet know about it. So it’s silly for him to now make out that he is the Big Discoverer of the article that he (in all likelihood) learned about from me in the first place. :-)

    Now, on 26 April 2003, I replied to Swan’s paper, in my post, “Counter-Reply: Martin Luther’s Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception), Part I (vs. James Swan):

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060713015205/http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/counter-reply-martin-luthers-mariology.html

    Cole was cited at length or mentioned several times in this paper. Then Jimbo Swan in turn replied to my paper in his tome, “Luther’s Theology of Mary: A Response to Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong” (July 2003):

    http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary2.htm

    All of a sudden, now he is aware of Cole’s existence:

    “Mr. Armstrong . . . cites Jaroslav Pelikan, David Wright, William J. Cole, . . .”

    “Quite frankly, the only studies that Armstrong utilized that were worthy of discussing this topic were O’Meara’s and Cole’s.”

    “Mr. Armstrong asserts (via William Cole) . . .”

    Once Swan discovered Cole through my writing, he cited him extensively in this second paper (because he likes a lot of what he says). Just because he happened to post this source discussed on this thread before I did (since he knew Cole was one of my older sources of Luther’s Mariology), doesn’t prove in the slightest degree that somehow he knew about him and I didn’t (so that I had to “steal” it from him). All it proves was that I watched a two-hour TV show, and so he beat me to the punch by 48 minutes. If I hadn’t watched the show, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    But I did, and so Swan seized the opportunity to (in effect) call me a bald-faced liar about the source that I knew about nine years before he did, and which he found out about through me in the first place. That takes some chutzpah, lemme tell ya!

    In the end it all worked out great, in God’s providence (Romans 8:28) because now we have the ridiculous spectacle of his groundless charge of my lying about having found my own original source, that is all documented on my site, so that he has once again made a big fool of himself. And now I have this further documentation that will be added to my paper, too. So it has all backfired on him big-time (as always when he comes after me).

    This is what I’ve been dealing with for nine years with his guy. I know no one here cares about that, and it’s boring as Hades, but since it was brought up again, by someone else, not myself, I have defended myself again, with lots of documented facts.

    It was my refutation of Swan’s big lengthy second paper on Luther’s Mariology that he has never gotten over. I guess that wounded his pride. Something happened, because after that he started saying that my work was worthless and that no one should pay any attention to it, while (oddly enough) he went on to post over 100 papers supposedly “refuting” it from that time to now, with plenty of slander and mockery throughout. Go figure, huh?

    If I am such a dunce and idiot, why does he pay me any attention at all? I’ve asked him that, and he says it is because my work influences many people adversely; from which I conclude that this must mean his anti-Catholic cronies are even stupider than he thinks I am: to be taken in by my worthless apologetics. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Of course I would have posted it, because it was my responsibility to do so. I was being strongly urged to produce the quotation, and I agreed. I had trouble finding it at first (because I hadn’t highlighted the portion I was looking for); then I did find it. It’s (partially) in a photocopy that has been part of my Luther files for some twenty years now.

    It was “my” source in the first place, in the sense that I found it in the library and may have also been the first to mention it on the Internet. I found it in 1994 and used it as a source in an article that was published twice in print (though it wasn’t mentioned in that article, which is why I had to look for it).

    I cited the article by full name in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which was completed in 1996, published on my own in 2001, and then by Sophia Institute Press in 2003. I cite Cole twice on p. 205 (also footnotes 213-214), and three times on p. 206 (footnotes 218, 220-221).

    Swan, on the other hand, in his long paper, “Martin Luther’s Theology of Mary” (with a revised appendix from July, 2003, so it was posted before that: sometime before 24 April 2003; see further below):

    http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary1.htm

    . . . never cites Cole, and appears to not know that the article exists, even though now he says (#158 above) that “the Cole article is extensive. It may be the lengthiest treatment of Luther’s Mariology in English.” He’s correct. Well, I found it long before he did (at least nine years earlier). It was mentioned in print in paperback in my first book in 2001. Here in 2003 Swan didn’t yet know about it. So it’s silly for him to now make out that he is the Big Discoverer of the article that he (in all likelihood) learned about from me in the first place. :-)

    Now, on 26 April 2003, I replied to Swan’s paper, in my post, “Counter-Reply: Martin Luther’s Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception), Part I (vs. James Swan):

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060713015205/http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/counter-reply-martin-luthers-mariology.html

    Cole was cited at length or mentioned several times in this paper. Then Jimbo Swan in turn replied to my paper in his tome, “Luther’s Theology of Mary: A Response to Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong” (July 2003):

    http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary2.htm

    All of a sudden, now he is aware of Cole’s existence:

    “Mr. Armstrong . . . cites Jaroslav Pelikan, David Wright, William J. Cole, . . .”

    “Quite frankly, the only studies that Armstrong utilized that were worthy of discussing this topic were O’Meara’s and Cole’s.”

    “Mr. Armstrong asserts (via William Cole) . . .”

    Once Swan discovered Cole through my writing, he cited him extensively in this second paper (because he likes a lot of what he says). Just because he happened to post this source discussed on this thread before I did (since he knew Cole was one of my older sources of Luther’s Mariology), doesn’t prove in the slightest degree that somehow he knew about him and I didn’t (so that I had to “steal” it from him). All it proves was that I watched a two-hour TV show, and so he beat me to the punch by 48 minutes. If I hadn’t watched the show, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    But I did, and so Swan seized the opportunity to (in effect) call me a bald-faced liar about the source that I knew about nine years before he did, and which he found out about through me in the first place. That takes some chutzpah, lemme tell ya!

    In the end it all worked out great, in God’s providence (Romans 8:28) because now we have the ridiculous spectacle of his groundless charge of my lying about having found my own original source, that is all documented on my site, so that he has once again made a big fool of himself. And now I have this further documentation that will be added to my paper, too. So it has all backfired on him big-time (as always when he comes after me).

    This is what I’ve been dealing with for nine years with his guy. I know no one here cares about that, and it’s boring as Hades, but since it was brought up again, by someone else, not myself, I have defended myself again, with lots of documented facts.

    It was my refutation of Swan’s big lengthy second paper on Luther’s Mariology that he has never gotten over. I guess that wounded his pride. Something happened, because after that he started saying that my work was worthless and that no one should pay any attention to it, while (oddly enough) he went on to post over 100 papers supposedly “refuting” it from that time to now, with plenty of slander and mockery throughout. Go figure, huh?

    If I am such a dunce and idiot, why does he pay me any attention at all? I’ve asked him that, and he says it is because my work influences many people adversely; from which I conclude that this must mean his anti-Catholic cronies are even stupider than he thinks I am: to be taken in by my worthless apologetics. :-)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave, the same charity that obliges me to believe you found the Cole quote on your own also obliges me to ignore the many, many, many things you’re alleging about James — in this thread alone. Shall I assume only the best about you, yet believe the worst about your enemy as you serve it up for me?

    I mean, maddening though you clearly find it, you really could learn a thing or two from James’ style here (@187):

    I’m not going to defend myself against all the mud hurled my way on multiple subjects. If any here choose to believe it, that’s fine.

    And that was his last comment on this thread. Since then, you’ve posted five comments mentioning James. I mean, honestly!

    I know a thing or two about endless, pointless, stubborn comment debates (just ask around), and even I’m fairly taken aback by your tack here. You really do seem overly concerned about yourself and your reputation, as well as appearing, well, obsessed about Mr. Swan.

    Maybe he’s equally obsessed about you, too — as you allege — but the evidence on this thread alone points pretty firmly in your direction (e.g. his six comments to your 51). I’m sure there’s more context and background on one or more of your blogs, but I’m certainly not inclined to go reading them after all this. (Actually, I did take a peek at your blog to see if you’d posted the correction — which you did — and, um, it’s full of exceedingly lengthy transcriptions of your interactions on this blog. For some reason.)

    I was serious when I welcomed you here and said I’d like to hear more from an informed Catholic viewpoint on this blog.

    But can you, you know, shut up about James Swan?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave, the same charity that obliges me to believe you found the Cole quote on your own also obliges me to ignore the many, many, many things you’re alleging about James — in this thread alone. Shall I assume only the best about you, yet believe the worst about your enemy as you serve it up for me?

    I mean, maddening though you clearly find it, you really could learn a thing or two from James’ style here (@187):

    I’m not going to defend myself against all the mud hurled my way on multiple subjects. If any here choose to believe it, that’s fine.

    And that was his last comment on this thread. Since then, you’ve posted five comments mentioning James. I mean, honestly!

    I know a thing or two about endless, pointless, stubborn comment debates (just ask around), and even I’m fairly taken aback by your tack here. You really do seem overly concerned about yourself and your reputation, as well as appearing, well, obsessed about Mr. Swan.

    Maybe he’s equally obsessed about you, too — as you allege — but the evidence on this thread alone points pretty firmly in your direction (e.g. his six comments to your 51). I’m sure there’s more context and background on one or more of your blogs, but I’m certainly not inclined to go reading them after all this. (Actually, I did take a peek at your blog to see if you’d posted the correction — which you did — and, um, it’s full of exceedingly lengthy transcriptions of your interactions on this blog. For some reason.)

    I was serious when I welcomed you here and said I’d like to hear more from an informed Catholic viewpoint on this blog.

    But can you, you know, shut up about James Swan?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I would be delighted to “shut up” about him. Tom brought it up again and I replied. Just don’t bring it up. It’s real simple. You yourself can also choose to:

    1) Simply not read any post of mine the moment it mentions Swan.

    2) Cease from your condescending lectures to me about it, and ignore it altogether.

    It’s easy for you to sit on the sidelines and throw potshots. You weren’t essentially called a liar on this thread (or all kinds of other hogwash for eight years, publicly). What he has written about me is legally actionable slander or libel. It’s easy as pie to be sanctimonious about such things, not being involved in them at all. You’re not in my shoes. I don’t take kindly to slander. I know that he attacks me only because he wants to discredit the Church which I defend. And I will NOT stand for that. It’s not about me. It’s about what I defend: the Catholic Church.

    If no one mentions him again here, I won’t, either. Brigitte brought him up and I replied. Tom did; I replied. You chide me again; I now reply. See the pattern there? You mention none of them, and don’t see how you contribute. It’s all my fault.

    In the Mariology thread I don’t have anything personal at all; strictly theology. And I hope it stays that way, along with any other thread I am in. Nothing would please me more. I don’t seek controversy, but I don’t put up with slander, either. All I ask is that people address my arguments and not engage in ad hominem nonsense. The problem is that when people run out of answers, they go right to the personal attack. Sadly, apologetics is much like politics in that way.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I would be delighted to “shut up” about him. Tom brought it up again and I replied. Just don’t bring it up. It’s real simple. You yourself can also choose to:

    1) Simply not read any post of mine the moment it mentions Swan.

    2) Cease from your condescending lectures to me about it, and ignore it altogether.

    It’s easy for you to sit on the sidelines and throw potshots. You weren’t essentially called a liar on this thread (or all kinds of other hogwash for eight years, publicly). What he has written about me is legally actionable slander or libel. It’s easy as pie to be sanctimonious about such things, not being involved in them at all. You’re not in my shoes. I don’t take kindly to slander. I know that he attacks me only because he wants to discredit the Church which I defend. And I will NOT stand for that. It’s not about me. It’s about what I defend: the Catholic Church.

    If no one mentions him again here, I won’t, either. Brigitte brought him up and I replied. Tom did; I replied. You chide me again; I now reply. See the pattern there? You mention none of them, and don’t see how you contribute. It’s all my fault.

    In the Mariology thread I don’t have anything personal at all; strictly theology. And I hope it stays that way, along with any other thread I am in. Nothing would please me more. I don’t seek controversy, but I don’t put up with slander, either. All I ask is that people address my arguments and not engage in ad hominem nonsense. The problem is that when people run out of answers, they go right to the personal attack. Sadly, apologetics is much like politics in that way.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “If you’re so gung-ho on the original sources, why don’t you do us all a favor and check all the pages that Cole listed under WA? I would greatly appreciate that, myself, whatever you think of me.” (210)

    For what it’s worth, I attempted to track down all of William Cole’s references for the bogus Luther quote brought up in this discussion. Of the twenty or so references, I wasn’t able to check the contexts for three of them (so far). The results of this can be found here:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/luther-mary-does-not-wish-that-we-come_08.html

    I have never claimed to be any sort of expert on Luther, ever. I’m simply a guy with a blog. I make no money, nor do I sell any products.

    What I do claim though is that Roman Catholicism has a lengthy history of misquoting and misinterpreting Luther. Now with so much available on the Internet, anyone can do what I do. It’s not a special talent. All it takes is a willingness to look up quotes and read them in their context, and try to understand the historical framework in which they were written in.

    Regards,
    James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “If you’re so gung-ho on the original sources, why don’t you do us all a favor and check all the pages that Cole listed under WA? I would greatly appreciate that, myself, whatever you think of me.” (210)

    For what it’s worth, I attempted to track down all of William Cole’s references for the bogus Luther quote brought up in this discussion. Of the twenty or so references, I wasn’t able to check the contexts for three of them (so far). The results of this can be found here:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/luther-mary-does-not-wish-that-we-come_08.html

    I have never claimed to be any sort of expert on Luther, ever. I’m simply a guy with a blog. I make no money, nor do I sell any products.

    What I do claim though is that Roman Catholicism has a lengthy history of misquoting and misinterpreting Luther. Now with so much available on the Internet, anyone can do what I do. It’s not a special talent. All it takes is a willingness to look up quotes and read them in their context, and try to understand the historical framework in which they were written in.

    Regards,
    James

  • http://www.lcrusa.org Rev. Dean Jeffrey A. Young, Ph.D.

    I’m very much interested in vocation, and I think you’ve missed the boat. I believe that vocation is tail, and that the three Estates is the dog. The estates are established in the Large catechism especially on the 4th commandment. The proper use of the estates is defined against abuses especially in two essays: “An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility” (1520), and “A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage.” These are gathered as they should be in the first volume of the American edition of Luther’s Works in vol. 44. The bad ideas about vocation are especially opposed and attacked in “The Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows.” Also in volume 44. I believe that people want to spin vocation to be all about the common man, and make of Luther an ancient Marxist who would establish a monastic order of the individual’s ideas and choices. But Luther was the great champion of Christian Liberty. Luther’s reform of society was the unfolding and application of Christian Liberty especially as it applies to God’s creations of church, state, and marriage. If you don’t take monasticism as the antithesis of vocation then you will mislead modern minds.

  • http://www.lcrusa.org Rev. Dean Jeffrey A. Young, Ph.D.

    I’m very much interested in vocation, and I think you’ve missed the boat. I believe that vocation is tail, and that the three Estates is the dog. The estates are established in the Large catechism especially on the 4th commandment. The proper use of the estates is defined against abuses especially in two essays: “An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility” (1520), and “A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage.” These are gathered as they should be in the first volume of the American edition of Luther’s Works in vol. 44. The bad ideas about vocation are especially opposed and attacked in “The Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows.” Also in volume 44. I believe that people want to spin vocation to be all about the common man, and make of Luther an ancient Marxist who would establish a monastic order of the individual’s ideas and choices. But Luther was the great champion of Christian Liberty. Luther’s reform of society was the unfolding and application of Christian Liberty especially as it applies to God’s creations of church, state, and marriage. If you don’t take monasticism as the antithesis of vocation then you will mislead modern minds.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X