Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Luther on the Immaculate Conception: A Response to Scott Windsor (Conclusion)

Well, it's about time to wrap up Scott Windsor week. Scott's posted Swan on Luther and the IC. Let's have a look:

Just a quick note/response here for now. James Swan has posted three more "parts" to his response to me on Luther and the Immaculate Conception. He seems to be repeating himself quite a bit and (speculating here) perhaps he's trying to overwhelm me so that he can have "the last word" in this discussion.

Ah yes, I've been exposed. It gets harder and harder to be devious and manipulating with Roman Catholic apologists. I posted an introductory post, commented on Windsor's methodology, and then focused on three specific Luther quotes. Yes, that is an overwhelming amount of material, meant to have the "last word." Foiled again!

Now I must emphasize - I am not yet ready for a full/contextual response. If his goal is to overwhelm - well, it's working partially. I say partially because the volumes of his replies is slowing me down, but there WILL be a response, as I have promised.

Ah yes, volumes: methodology, and three specific quotes. Let's hope Mr. Windsor's "full/contextual response" actually includes reading a source before citing a source with his next response.

Noting again now... I am appreciative of Mr. Swan's efforts to demonstrate potential and realized flaws in the citations which have been on my website regarding "The Reformers on Mary." Once we've pretty much exhausted this discussion (which based upon Swan's repeating his points, I think we're pretty close to that now) then I will amend the original page on my site as well as the "work in progress" blog entry here so that both places will have the same information.

It's my pleasure to show once again, how deep into history some Roman Catholic studies in the Reformation actually are.

So, with that, I will close. This posting is intended to be acknowledgment of Swan's continued responses and to let the readership here know that a response is forthcoming.

Well, my "readership" goes down dramatically when I post on Luther's Mariology... It just goes to show, I really don't want to be popular.

Well, my comment at BeggarsAll was posted and then it disappeared, now it's back again. I'm not sure how that's happening... all I can think is it's one of two things:1) The "spam filter" catches it after it's posted and puts it in the spam folder until an administrator releases it.OR2) Someone there deleted it, but did not "permanently" and thus it showed back up again.I'm leaning more toward option 1, as I believe a temporarily deleted comment still leaves a placeholder saying "Comment deleted" and once it is permanently deleted, there's no way to get it back.

I'm leaning towards a Bermuda Triangle type of multi-dimensional explanation.

I reiterate my position - I am working on Mr. Swan's comments, he's posted a LOT of them (5 parts). Granted, some of them are merely repeats - but I still have to weed through them. He's also not very supportive at times. When it suits him, he posts quotes and/or images of original sources, but at other times he's taken the position of "go out and buy it yourself." Well, I've already gone out and bought 3 sources (spending over $50 so far) so as I said, I'm not opposed to spending some money - but I'm not going to break the bank over this.

When I have a historical discussion over quotes, I don't take my responsibility seriously. Everyone knows I'm supposed to provide the sources for anyone who disagrees with me. Why should someone else have to buy a book? It's like, "Swan's spent the money- it's his responsibility to generously send Roman Catholics the sources so we can have an intelligent discussion with him over contexts."

I'm sure Swan & Co. would be happy if I were to just quit and give up on this - I'll not give him/them that satisfaction.

No, by all means Scott, run your blog into the ground posting on Luther and the immaculate conception, just like I have.

It does seem that the closer I get to presenting the truth - the more the insults fly from "their side." They are acting like they have something to hide, something to be ashamed of - and truly, their behavior IS something to be ashamed of. Perhaps there is another "win" possible here - and that would be for them to realize and admit to how poorly they are behaving and amend their ways? I won't hold my breath for that to happen - but one can hope.

Yes, we meet together once a month, to make sure all the secret Protestant stuff remains secured. Then we work on insults and slander.

Seriously Scott: are you serious with such comments?

79 comments:

CathApol said...

James,
I'm not going to be dragged into the personal banter. I am close to republishing my page on "The Reformers on Mary" (I have taken it down while working on the changes). I have been and remain grateful for the work you've done.

As for "Luther on the Immaculate Conception" - you are entitled to your opinion. I have seen how one who opposes Luther believing in the IC all his life can get that impression - I can also see how he did continue believing in it. So on that point - we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

steve said...

Scott Windsor:

"They are acting like they have something to hide..."

We have to be ever vigilant. Like the Da Vinci Code.

It’s necessary to monitor the pillow talk of our members. Bug their cars, phones, and bedrooms.

Why, we once had a member, a really nice guy, but during an intimate conversation with his girlfriend he inadvertently let slip one of our damning trade secrets about the "real" Martin Luther. So, of course, we had no choice but to "disappear" the both of them. Nothing personal, you understand.

That’s why we hire off-duty Mafia triggermen for the odd job. Cash-n-carry.

James Swan said...

Mr. Windsor,

Back on December 20 I stated,

"Scott, if you can read through that extended section from LW 7 I posted in my response and still maintain your view, I'd say we'd have to a agree to disagree. Likewise, you would have to agree to disagree with the editors of Luther's works."

You responded in part on the same day:

"I believe James is ready to "agree to disagree," and we may have to end the discussion with that... My article demonstrates a life-long acceptance of the Immaculate Conception (for those in Hooterville, that's Mary's conception) at least up until just 2 years from his death... So James may feel the need to "agree to disagree" - but he's not disagreeing with me, but with Luther's own words which James himself cited from just 2 years before Luther died!"

Now, here we are on December 31, and you think it's best to "agree to disagree." What happened to the certainty you expressed on December 20... that inferred you so demolished my position that I was forced to simply "agree to disagree" rather than face your arguments and respond to them?

Why, a few days ago I wasn't disagreeing with Scott Windsor, I was disagreeing with Luther himself!

I find all this a bit funny.

James Swan said...

James,
I'm not going to be dragged into the personal banter.

Well Scott, I wasn't trying to out-write you as a ploy. The reason why I can write quickly and more on this subject is because unlike you, I've been looking at it for more than a week. Your comments weren't deleted by an administrator. It's the Blogger spam filter. Comments appear for a second, then if you refresh the page they disappear. Why don't you know this yet?

Saying stuff like I'm acting like I have something to hide, something to be ashamed of is just well, personal banter. The simple truth is Scott, you posted a web page with a bunch of quotes you never even bothered to look up, all this while calling yourself "Catholic Truth Society." Whose responsibility it is it to look stuff up before posting it on a web site entitled "Catholic Truth Society"? It's not my responsibility to do your work, or buy your books.

CathApol said...

It is all a bit funny. The bottom line is there is enough evidence to support my position and there's negative evidence and secondary commentary to support your position. Both of us have expressed the "who really cares about Luther's position anyway" and we're both content to state he was wrong when we feel he was. My goal is not to "beat you" but just to fix my web page (nearly done, but I'm waiting on one more resource before concluding it) which I believe presents my case rather objectively. Certainly there's some subjectivity going on - from both sides of this debate. I still maintain that he never rejected the "two conceptions" theory - and "subjecting" his later statements to that view - he never flatly denies the Immaculate Conception.

My view of your side of the argument is that you are subjecting your view to negative comments from secondary sources who claim parts of the 1527 sermon are omitted in later publications. Then based upon the absence of information you (and these "editors" or "commentators") state Luther denied the IC. That's pretty weak argumentation, and we've already agreed that silence lends to consent, not negation - so yes, I'm about to the point of agreeing to disagree and letting the objective reader sort things out.

I have no plans of spending literally hours going through all, what is it now SIX "replies" from you on this matter (some of which are just repeated arguments, but weeding through what's old and what's new is time consuming too), but if I'm bored someday - or some week - I may decide to post a final response myself. As for now, my planned "final response" will be the reposting of my web page (yes, I took it down while I'm working on it).

James Swan said...

It is all a bit funny.

Well, what I find funny is your dogmatism from eleven days ago compared to your recent statements.

The bottom line is there is enough evidence to support my position and there's negative evidence and secondary commentary to support your position.

How would you know Scott? As far I can tell, you looked at a few quotes from secondary sources, and then wrote more on a subject you appear to know nothing about.

Both of us have expressed the "who really cares about Luther's position anyway" and we're both content to state he was wrong when we feel he was.

Yes- I'm content to simply let Luther say whatever he said. I've stated this more than a few times now. Endeavours like this interest me in a polemical sense- that is, in pointing out, yet again, that when it comes to Luther studies, many Roman Catholics do not go "deep into history." Why post 5 or 6 responses to Scott Windsor? To show that his work , like many other Internet apologists, falls apart when scrutinized.

My goal is not to "beat you" but just to fix my web page (nearly done, but I'm waiting on one more resource before concluding it) which I believe presents my case rather objectively.

Well, Scott, that's great. But the bigger lesson is this: look stuff up before posting it. It's a different world now. 10 years ago maybe Roman Catholics could get away with posting shoddily documented propaganda. But now, stuff can be looked up with ease.

Certainly there's some subjectivity going on - from both sides of this debate. I still maintain that he never rejected the "two conceptions" theory - and "subjecting" his later statements to that view - he never flatly denies the Immaculate Conception.

And this has been answered in my responses to you. I don't require you to interact with it. It's enough for me to point out you blue bolded Luther quotes in your blog entry that he later removed from the sermon in question.

My view of your side of the argument is that you are subjecting your view to negative comments from secondary sources who claim parts of the 1527 sermon are omitted in later publications.

And this is something I've been meaning to ask you Scott. Are you denying the statements you blue bolded were deleted from the sermon? Are you saying my 1584 translation of the Festival Sermons of Martin Luther contains a different 1527 sermon on Mary's conception?

Then based upon the absence of information you (and these "editors" or "commentators") state Luther denied the IC. That's pretty weak argumentation, and we've already agreed that silence lends to consent, not negation - so yes, I'm about to the point of agreeing to disagree and letting the objective reader sort things out.

And it will be once again, a good opportunity for me to show how Roman Catholic e-pologists like yourself don't really go deep into history.

I have no plans of spending literally hours going through all, what is it now SIX "replies" from you on this matter (some of which are just repeated arguments, but weeding through what's old and what's new is time consuming too), but if I'm bored someday - or some week - I may decide to post a final response myself. As for now, my planned "final response" will be the reposting of my web page (yes, I took it down while I'm working on it).

Yes, save it till your bored. That's great.

CathApol said...

> JS: Well Scott, I wasn't trying
> to out-write you as a ploy.

SW: I'll take you at your word on this, I only expressed an opinion of what appears to be going on. An opinion can be dismissed, and you just did - and I accept that.

> JS: The reason why I can write
> quickly and more on this subject
> is because unlike you, I've been
> looking at it for more than a
> week.

SW: Yes, it's been a couple weeks now, and I don't deny your previous dealings with the subject matter nor do I deny that you likely have greater resources to Luther than I have (or care to have).

> JS: Your comments weren't
> deleted by an administrator.
> It's the Blogger spam filter.

SW: I already stated it was more likely that.

> JS: Comments appear for a
> second, then if you refresh the
> page they disappear. Why don't
> you know this yet?

SW: Why? Because I haven't had to deal with the spam filter much in the over 8 years I've been on Blogger. Typically, and from the administrator's view, I don't see the comment appearing for a second. I've only been subjected to the spam filter a couple times now myself - both from your blog, so now I understand it better.

> JS: Saying stuff like I'm acting
> like I have something to hide,
> something to be ashamed of is
> just well, personal banter.

SW: As I said, I expressed an opinion - which you dismiss. Yes, that was somewhat of personal banter. What I'm not going to engage is what I see as little more than (if more at all than) juvenile insults and the ad hominem approach to apologetics.

SW: As for "having something to hide" - again, it appears you HAVE the source(s) available, but for WHATEVER REASON you choose not to share the truth. You justify your position with "let him go out and spend the money." To which I'm fine with saying, "If truth doesn't matter, only that Mr. Windsor equals Mr. Swan in spending - then truth loses and Mr. Windsor concedes." I have no interest in building a huge library on Luther. I've already purchased several resources in the course of this debate (more than 1/3 of the way to where I could have bought all of Luther's Works on CD) - but again, I only have a passing interest in Luther, being a former Lutheran. I also will repeat my acknowledgment and thanks to you for the information you HAVE quoted and cited. Where I have quoted from your work, I am giving proper credit. For some, once *I own* the source, I will simply cite the source, even if you found it first. That being said, I am STILL expressing my gratitude for what you have done (and quite willing to overlook most of the silly insults, or attempts to insult - most of which have not come from you personally).

So, let's let your conclusion be your conclusion and wait until my web page is republished. If you still have issues with it then, bring it up then.

Scott<<<

PS- Steve, Mafia triggermen are never really "off-duty." :-) A triggerman who takes side jobs cannot be trusted. :-)

James Swan said...

Here you go Scott:

Windsor in the Spam Filter

That was your last comment.

Scott said...

> JS: Yes- I'm content to simply
> let Luther say whatever he said.
> I've stated this more than a few
> times now.

SW: But you apparently are not so content. You rely upon statements Luther did NOT make and secondary, or even tertiary editorial commentaries implying the LACK of saying something (silence) equates to negation of what isn't said - and that is diametrically opposed to logic. Silence implies consent, not negation. The record shows, you're not letting Luther be Luther, you're letting Luther be what some editor(s) say Luther is. If Luther ever actually flatly denied the Immaculate Conception you could have shut me up like 5 replies ago by simply presenting "Luther being Luther."

Scott<<<

James Swan said...

SW: But you apparently are not so content. You rely upon statements Luther did NOT make and secondary, or even tertiary editorial commentaries implying the LACK of saying something (silence) equates to negation of what isn't said - and that is diametrically opposed to logic. Silence implies consent, not negation. The record shows, you're not letting Luther be Luther, you're letting Luther be what some editor(s) say Luther is. If Luther ever actually flatly denied the Immaculate Conception you could have shut me up like 5 replies ago by simply presenting "Luther being Luther."

And this is something I've been meaning to ask you Scott. Are you denying the statements you blue bolded were deleted from the sermon? Are you saying my 1584 translation of the Festival Sermons of Martin Luther contains a different 1527 sermon on Mary's conception?

Scott said...

> JS: Here you go Scott:
> Windsor in the Spam Filter
> That was your last comment.

SW: Dude, I believe you! Did you read that comment before going through the effort of capturing the screenscrape and uploading it to another blog then posting a link to that other blog just so you could drive the point home that I already said "I understand it better now?"

SW: It probably happens when someone replies too quickly after posting something else to the same blog moments earlier. No biggie, time to let this one go.

Scott said...

> JS: And this is something I've
> been meaning to ask you Scott.
> Are you denying the statements
> you blue bolded were deleted
> from the sermon? Are you saying
> my 1584 translation of the
> Festival Sermons of Martin
> Luther contains a different 1527
> sermon on Mary's conception?

SW: 1) No, I've made no such denial.
2) I've explicitly stated (numerous times now) that you're relying upon something Luther did NOT SAY to conclude by NOT SAYING SOMETHING he was NEGATING what was previously said. Again, that doesn't work in the world of logical debate.
3) 1584 is nearly 40 years AFTER LUTHER DIED - when was the work written which was translated? I have no doubt that LutherANS after Luther died denied all sorts of things "Catholic." In fact, I was one of those "LutherANS" for 29 years.

James Swan said...

Um, Scott- Putting that picture up took under a minute.

Keep in mind, this is at least the second time you've questioned if your comments were being deleted. I know how important documentation is for you, so now you have it.

James Swan said...

1584 is nearly 40 years AFTER LUTHER DIED - when was the work written which was translated?

Once again Scott, this entry:

Lutheran scholar Eric Gritsch makes a more recent reference to the fact that the sermon was edited. After quoting a portion of the sermon in question, he footnotes the text stating: "In another version of the same sermon from 1528 Luther declared that Scripture did not say anything about the conception of Mary. Accordingly, various ideas can be advanced, as long as none of them becomes an article of faith. For an analysis of the two versions, see Dufel, 169-170" [H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess (editors) The One Mediator, The Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), p. 381]. Gritsch bases his findings on Hans Dufel's, Luthers Stellung zur Marienverehrung (Kirche und Konfession Veroffentlichungen des konfessionskundlichen Instituts des Evangelischen Bundes 13; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968).

Gritsch is referring to the revised ending, which by the way, is one of the pictures I posted for you.

By the way, this entry presents information on the editing of Luther's Church Postil.

James Swan said...

Hey one last thing Scott before we wait for you to be bored and then respond. You quote the following from Luther:

But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person.

You say the first sentence is about Mary being conceived: "the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin." Why doesn't it follow that the second sentence isn't also about Mary's conception: "Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person"?

Exactly what is this sentence saying, according to Scott Windsor?

It looks to me that the subject in both sentences is the same. Is Luther saying Mary was "purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person"?

Rhology said...

Tbh, I'm an alleged contributor to this blog and I find it difficult to read much of anything when James posts on LutherMary stuff. :-D

Rhology said...

I know how important documentation is for you, so now you have it.

Giggle.

John Lollard said...

I have to agree with Rho and James.

Did Luther even make any "good" arguments for the IC, and you could debate the merits or faults of aspects of the arguments? That'd be interesting and edifying.

Near as I can tell, though, Luther's "arguments" for the IC consist of assertions used to build a bridge to where he's trying to go all the while walking across it.

I'm glad Scott has the intellectual integrity to buy a book on Luther to correct a previous error that he made. Hopefully Scott will soon be buying some books on the early church to correct a more serious error that he made :P

steelikat said...

I don't understand why turretinfan and I have been the only ones to point out that even if Scott were right that Luther's views had not changed he still wouldn't be a believer in the IC. The belief that Mary was purified from the stain of sin is precisely the belief of those who DENY the immaculate conception (but believe in MArys sinlessness).

natamllc said...

Scott,

> JS: Your comments weren't
> deleted by an administrator.
> It's the Blogger spam filter.

SW: I already stated it was more likely that.


You poison the well Scott by even going there.

The dumb readers, like me, when innocently and ignorantly read that there are two options, guess what, I start thinking about options? The bad me immediately starts thinking bad thoughts about the so and so who quenched your thirsts being expressed! In this case you demeaned James when putting over options instead of comprehending what was going on and humbly asking for clarification for the absence of your comments posted.

So I fault you for adding poison to this debate. I'll add my own.

"That was a cheap shot Scott"! and leads me to conclude similar reasons for why your arguments aren't carrying the debate and James' are.

James Swan said...

I don't understand why turretinfan and I have been the only ones to point out that even if Scott were right that Luther's views had not changed he still wouldn't be a believer in the IC. The belief that Mary was purified from the stain of sin is precisely the belief of those who DENY the immaculate conception (but believe in MArys sinlessness)

It's a good point, and I followed the earlier comments on this.

With an increasing interest in the holiness of Mary, the Western Church became absorbed into the question of her immaculate conception. Though Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, and even the great venerator of Mary, Saint Bernard, held that Mary had been infected by original sin, the later Middle Ages saw the rise of theologians supporting her sinlessness. Supported strongly by the Franciscan order, Duns Scotus and William of Occam promoted the view that Mary was freed from the stain of original sin, as did Luther’s theological grandfather, Gabriel Biel.

CathApol said...

nat wrote:
> JS: Your comments weren't
> deleted by an administrator.
> It's the Blogger spam filter.

SW: I already stated it was more likely that.

You poison the well Scott by even going there.

The dumb readers, like me, when innocently and ignorantly read that there are two options, guess what, I start thinking about options? The bad me immediately starts thinking bad thoughts about the so and so who quenched your thirsts being expressed! In this case you demeaned James when putting over options instead of comprehending what was going on and humbly asking for clarification for the absence of your comments posted.

So I fault you for adding poison to this debate. I'll add my own.

"That was a cheap shot Scott"! and leads me to conclude similar reasons for why your arguments aren't carrying the debate and James' are.


Hi nat, my apologies for drawing you in that direction. I had not had much experience being subjected to the spam filter and when I saw my post posted (even copied and pasted it elsewhere) and then turn around and it was gone - my first thought was it could not be the spam filter, because I saw it posted! It has happened a total of two times, and with this incident it has become clear what is going on.

I was wrong to assume foul play was a possibility. When I am wrong, I say so - and I even said so before James "documented" it.

CathApol said...

James agreeing with steelikat said:
It's a good point, and I followed the earlier comments on this.

The actual definition (which is where it becomes a required article of faith) uses the terminology of the "stain of sin" so I fail to see how it's a "good point" in the least, it seems rather a backward (opposite) point.

James Swan said...

Scott,

Any chance you'll comment on the second sentence I mentioned a few comments back?

That is, only if you're bored (:

CathApol said...

James asks:
Any chance you'll comment on the second sentence I mentioned a few comments back?

I have already answered this, let me try again: Luther (and I believe Swan and I agree on this) did not believe the flesh/mass which the Holy Ghost conceived within Mary had any remnant whatsoever from Original Sin. That which became Jesus did not need purification, it was already pure BECAUSE “in the moment of the Virgin’s conception (Mary’s) the Holy Ghost purged and sanctified the sinful mass” - that “sinful mass” can ONLY be referring to what Luther called “the first conception” of Mary herself. Again, if could NOT be referring to Jesus’ conception for in Luther’s theology (and again, we agree here) there was no “poison of the devil and death” or “leaven of sin” to be “purged out” of Christ in His conception. The “purging” of that “sinful mass” was the purging of Mary’s “sinful mass” - which, upon the first moment of the physical conception (first conception, in Luther’s terminology) she was just a mass of tissue. However, upon animation, when God gives her her soul, at that moment of her (second) conception, the “leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit.” I repeat, Jesus’ flesh NEVER needed purification.

natamllc said...

Scott,

well, ok, begrudgingly!

you wrote:

Hi nat, my apologies for drawing you in that direction. I had not had much experience being subjected to the spam filter and when I saw my post posted (even copied and pasted it elsewhere) and then turn around and it was gone - my first thought was it could not be the spam filter, because I saw it posted! It has happened a total of two times, and with this incident it has become clear what is going on.

Ha! None of us had, Scott. In fact, ironically, the first I learnt about spam filters and disappearing comments was in here from James!

Others, I believe, finally came around to understand his discovery shortly thereafter and few, if any, others expressed ill will towards blog administrators like you had when experiencing similar fates!

I don't buy therefore your justification above. I am open for any chastisement or correction for holding this view still.

It seems to me you would do yourself a good work of service to just acknowledge the shame of poisoning the well and leave us to accept your admission and exercise Christ's loving forgiveness to you as we have been taught, see 1 John 4:10-11 or continue to fault you so by coming under the chastisement of the Lord's Spirit for our fault. Instead now you give your concise justification for why there was that ever so brief moment of ill will towards the administrators of this blog.

I know this might amount to making a mountain out of a mole hill, but, if we cannot be found faithful in the little things, why should anyone entrust us with more?

James Swan said...

Scott, once again, the second sentence:

Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person.

Can you explain what this sentence means, and how it relates to that sentence which comes before it? Whose flesh is purged by the Holy Spirit and then "united with the divine nature in one person"?

CathApol said...

> JS: Can you explain what this
> sentence means, and how it
> relates to that sentence which
> comes before it? Whose flesh is
> purged by the Holy Spirit and
> then "united with the divine
> nature in one person"?

First off, my main computer died yesterday, not sure how quickly I'll be getting back to other replies. I think I lost the harddrive. I am using my wife's laptop right now.

Second, we have a few things to consider here:

1) The flesh which is purified is Mary's flesh.
2) The flesh which is purified is Jesus' flesh.
3) The purification happens at Mary's conception ("the Virgin's conception").
4) The purification happens at Jesus' conception.

I can see all of these being argued for from this limited context. I go with options 1 and 3. Option 2 contradicts Luther (and virtually all of Christendom) that Jesus' flesh ever needed purification. Option 4 contradicts earlier statements from Luther - as we have already demonstrated.

James Swan said...

So Scott, Let's revise Luther's sentence- Windsor style:

But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified MARY'S sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in MARY'S flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out OF MARY, and it became the purest flesh, OF MARY purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in THE one Person OF MARY.

Scott, do you see any problems with "the divine nature" part of the sentence if Mary is the subject?

James Swan said...

Now Scott compare:

But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception OF CHRIST the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person.

Don't you think this sentence makes a bit more sense now?

Turretinfan said...

I noticed this from SW:

1) The flesh which is purified is Mary's flesh.
2) The flesh which is purified is Jesus' flesh.
3) The purification happens at Mary's conception ("the Virgin's conception").
4) The purification happens at Jesus' conception.


I can't believe that after having it explained to him more than once, Mr. Windsor still doesn't seem to grasp that "Virgin's Conception" is a perfectly legitimate description of "the act of the virgin conceiving," as in "a virgin shall conceive ... ."

He really seems to think that it can only refer to the conception by Mary's mother of Mary.

Just like "Rembrandt's portrait" can refer to a portrait of or by Rembrandt, so "Virgin's conception" can refer to a conception of or by a virgin.

-TurretinFan

James Swan said...

I can't believe that after having it explained to him more than once, Mr. Windsor still doesn't seem to grasp that "Virgin's Conception" is a perfectly legitimate description of "the act of the virgin conceiving," as in "a virgin shall conceive ... ." He really seems to think that it can only refer to the conception by Mary's mother of Mary. Just like "Rembrandt's portrait" can refer to a portrait of or by Rembrandt, so "Virgin's conception" can refer to a conception of or by a virgin.-TurretinFan

The worst of it is the entire surrounding context in LW 7 points to the exact conclusion that I've presented. Scott merely dismisses the rest of LW 7 as Luther contradicting himself within the same text.

Windsor's apologetic empire is currently awaiting a new hard drive, I assume. Or, it could be, Scott's not bored enough today to respond any longer. There really is only one response I'll accept on this quote: a blatant admission from Scott that he's mis-reading this text.

CathApol said...

There really is only one response I'll accept on this quote: a blatant admission from Scott that he's mis-reading this text.

ROFL! You see it your way, I see it mine. As for comments from the peanut gallery, I have already accepted one "could" read it that way, so feel free to do so.

Also, I mentioned I would be out of town for most of the weekend, and that remained true. Enough of the pissing match. I am not empire building, I seek the truth. I have access to more than one computer - however some of the stuff I saved from the internet was only on that one - which is, I'm pretty sure, toast. Much of what I did has been saved to Google Docs, so while it's a loss, it is not one I cannot recover from.

Scott<<<

James Swan said...

ROFL! You see it your way, I see it mine. As for comments from the peanut gallery, I have already accepted one "could" read it that way, so feel free to do so.
Also, I mentioned I would be out of town for most of the weekend, and that remained true. Enough of the pissing match. I am not empire building, I seek the truth. I have access to more than one computer - however some of the stuff I saved from the internet was only on that one - which is, I'm pretty sure, toast. Much of what I did has been saved to Google Docs, so while it's a loss, it is not one I cannot recover from.


Scott, I don't consider Tfan "peanut gallery."

I'm asking you basically to interpret one word in its context: "divine." Whose flesh is purged by the Holy Spirit and then "united with the divine nature in one person" ? You've been an apologist for so long, I can't figure out why you keep avoiding such a basic question.

By the way, sorry about your computer. I use three different computers, and keep everything backed up, and also invested in an extra hard drive to store things.

Rhology said...

Do you suppose it would help if we put it in bold?

****Scott Windsor, please answer this question, the one right here: Whose flesh is purged by the Holy Spirit and then "united with the divine nature in one person"?****

James Swan said...

Rho,

I'm leaning towards: no.

CathApol said...

More "peanut gallery" comments... I do have a response nearly finished to the above - however, I was on my wife's computer and she needed it, so I did the "switch user" thing and then have not had time to get back to it - and I am not with that computer at all at the moment. As long as she has not rebooted, it will still be there when I return this evening. More later.

Patience padawans... patience...

Scott<<<

PS- As for other computers, I still have 4 others I can use and 2 external harddrives used for backups, plus a terabyte harddrive in one of the computers in use on my network which I also use for backups PLUS Google Docs - all that I am missing from this discussion is the info I've saved from the internet - plus the Kindle docs I purchased (which can be recovered as well on another computer or my Kindle). I don't backup things everyday, only when I get to a point where I'd rather not have to redo too much. Thanks for the concern. Restoring the laptop will be a project, that once I get a new harddrive should not take me long to complete.

CathApol said...

While you're waiting for me, let's try reversing your request to me, I've bolded the words I've revised...

So James, Let's revise Luther's sentence- Swan style:

But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified JESUS' sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in JESUS' flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out OF JESUS, and it became the purest flesh, OF JESUS purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in THE one Person OF JESUS.

James, do you see any problems with "the divine nature" part of the sentence if Jesus is the subject?

CathApol said...

Actually, let me revise that last sentence a bit more:

James, do you see any problems with "the divine nature" and the purging of sin part of the sentence if Jesus is the subject?

CathApol said...

Let me also ask, based on Alan's request, what does it mean in Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:5 and Mark 10:8 when we consider that is what is meant when the two become one - in that sense does not the Holy Ghost (God) become one with Mary? If not, why not? Please explain your answer.

steelikat said...

Turretinfan said,

"I can't believe that after having it explained to him more than once, Mr. Windsor still doesn't seem to grasp that 'Virgin's Conception' is a perfectly legitimate description of 'the act of the virgin conceiving," as in "a virgin shall conceive ... .'"

Legitimate or not, Luther makes it clear that he does mean that, as James as conclusively shown.

I would be pretty skeptical if all you had was "it could mean the conception of Jesus." But the point is, whether or not Luther's language was clear in that particular sentence, in context Luther leaves no doubt that is what he's talking about.

How can anyone who has followed the debate not see that by now?

Rhology said...

what is meant when the two become one

Marriage is meant.
How is that relevant?

James Swan said...

James, do you see any problems with "the divine nature" part of the sentence if Jesus is the subject?

Scott, the problem is the entire context points to the fact that it was at Mary's conception of Christ in which she was "purified." You have LW 7 now, so read it.

Are there pages missing from the Kindle version you have?

James Swan said...

How can anyone who has followed the debate not see that by now?

Well, we'll have Scott's magnum opus, so I assume he's bored and has time to work on it now.

Sorry Scott, I can't let the "bored" comment go- It's my favorite Windsorism so far.

CathApol said...

JS: Sorry Scott, I can't let the "bored" comment go- It's my favorite Windsorism so far.

I have no problem with your constant attempts to belittle. Keep it up! If you wish to continue to be seen as one who must stoop to such measures - I truly have no problem with that. As for the "bored" comment, I meant it. I have many other things going on around me, this discussion of Luther is rather insignificant. If things slow down, I'll get back to the "magnum opus" - plus, I'm still waiting on another reference source to arrive (yes, I bought another one) so again, patience. I don't expect to be working on the "magnum opus" for at least a week (book is not scheduled to be here until the 11th). I remain in agreement with you - I really don't care what Luther said - personally, I'm just making sure the website has the correct information and citations.

Scott<<<

PS- The Kindle edition is complete, it's just a drag that you can't copy and paste from it nor does it have page numbering for reference. The closest I can get with that is the chapter reference (unless I'm missing something).

CathApol said...

Alan wrote (quoting me first):
>> SW: what is meant when the
>> two become one
>
> AR: Marriage is meant.

SW: Simply marriage? You have not studied this too much I see. The two become more than just married, but the two become one flesh when they cleave to one another in the consummation of marriage - which is the act of procreation.

> AR: How is that relevant?

SW: Considering how the Blessed Virgin was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost and became pregnant, I'll let you connect a few of the dots here.

SW: I am just providing you with another way of looking at and applying Luther's words.

Scott<<<

Rhology said...

SW said:
More comments from the peanut gallery

And then:
I have no problem with your constant attempts to belittle.

Hmmmmm...
But comparing the Holy Spirit's overshadowing Mary to the sexual consummation between husband and wife in marriage, now that's a doozy. Yeesh.

CathApol said...

Alan, the "peanut gallery" refers to those not directly involved in the discussion who are throwing their comments in. I'll answer comments from "the peanut gallery" from time to time, but the focus of my attention for this thread has been and remains with Mr. Swan's challenges so that we're not so distracted with what other people may feel like throwing into the mix. The use is not intended to belittle - rather to remind folks that the main thrust of this discussion is between Mr. Swan and myself. Keep in mind, Mr. Swan singled out my website in this discussion and directly challenged me personally (even though the original words were not my own, a fact I believe he knew going into this), and I have been quite (IMHO) gracious in accepting the criticism and correction he's had to offer regarding the sources and citations used by the original author of that page. I have taken down the page and am making corrections to it with proper citations - and will republish it when I am finished.

If you took that comment to be something more derogatory than it was intended, then I offer my apologies for not being more clear, but perhaps in the future (I hope) you will know my intent and not take offense to it.

Scott<<<

CathApol said...

AR: Hmmmmm...
But comparing the Holy Spirit's overshadowing Mary to the sexual consummation between husband and wife in marriage, now that's a doozy. Yeesh.


How can one NOT make the comparison? She got pregnant. You're not getting all prudish about sexuality, are you? Now, I'm not saying there was physical intercourse - for the Holy Ghost is Spirit and Mary is Flesh - but through that "overshadowing" she became pregnant. When a husband "overshadows" his wife, the two flesh become one - and procreation can occur - and when it DOES occur their two flesh have truly become one in their offspring.

Now ONE argument for Luther's position (and I believe this is Swan's argument) is that he believed Mary was purified at the conception of Jesus. That CAN be argued, but without an outright denial of his earlier position, Luther can still be viewed in light of his "two conceptions" theory - the physical (which every animal goes through) and the spiritual conception of the animation of the soul (which only humans have).

That's all I've been saying. Swan can have his argument - I just see where there's still room for my argument, but Swan won't have that. All he'll accept is: "a blatant admission from Scott that he's mis-reading this text."

As I stated previously, ironically it is not I who has drawn a dogmatic line in the sand in this debate.

Scott<<<

James Swan said...

But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified JESUS' sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in JESUS' flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out OF JESUS, and it became the purest flesh, OF JESUS purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in THE one Person OF JESUS.James, do you see any problems with "the divine nature" part of the sentence if Jesus is the subject?

Scott, the reason I keep asking you about this quote is to get you to try to make sense of it, unless of course you simply think Luther was such a poor theologian that the quote is a garbled mess. I don't put that view past you at this point, since you've already stated Luther contradicts himself in this very context- a position I think is bogus and desperate- to avoid the obvious that you are completely mis-reading this text and context from LW 7.

The point I keep trying to get you to think about is that if Luther is speaking about the conception of Mary in her mother's womb, the second sentence makes no sense. Let's try it one more time.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend Luther is speaking about the conception of Mary in her mother's womb in the first sentence:

But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin.

Now, if this was all we had (that is, the rest of LW 7 simply vanished), the text could go either way: It could be the conception of Mary in her mother's womb, it could also be the conception of Christ in Mary's womb. Luther would simply be calling Mary "the virgin" as a title of Mary, not making reference to the virgin birth. Of course the context SCREAMS virgin birth, so in my view (and I could research this for Scott) Luther isn't calling Mary by a title, but referring to the virgin birth.

Now the second sentence:

Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person.

In the next sentence Luther says, "death remained in that flesh on our account." Now of course, the rest of the context from LW 7 explains what that means ( Luther is commenting on Genesis 38 and the account of Judah and Tamar- He expounds on the reasons the Bible includes such scandalous accounts, and how "the flesh from which Christ was to be born was poured from the loins of Judah and was propagated, carried about, and contaminated with sin right up to the conception of Christ."

Let's though pretend again. If Luther's talking about the conception of Mary in her mother's womb, is the "flesh" he's talking about Mary's mother or Mary? Well, if it's Mary's mother, then it wouldn't make sense, because "the leaven of sin" wasn't purged out of Mary's mother. So let's say Luther is talking about Mary and her being conceived in her mother's womb. "Death remained in (Mary's flesh at her conception)on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh." OK, let's say that Luther is meaning to say that in Mary's first conception, death remained in it for our account. I have no idea what Luther would bw saying if indeed this was his point. Why does death need to remain in Mary's first conception for our account? Perhaps Mr. Windsor could explain.

-continued-

James Swan said...

Next Luther states, "the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit ." In Scott's view, this again would refer to Mary's first conception. Does a conceived infant in the first moment of conception have flesh? Well, Luther could be speaking figuratively if he holds Windsor's view, I guess.

This is the part I don't get, and only Windsor can explain this one to me if his view is what Luther meant. Luther would be stating Mary after her second conception (or during), was then "united with the divine nature in one Person."

Scott, I just don't see how this last part of the sentence makes any sense if Luther is speaking about the conception of Mary in her mother's womb. How is Mary united with the divine nature in one person? Do you think he means that Mary in her holiness or purity became united with God's divine nature? If so, I have never read Luther saying anything remotely similar to this about Mary.

Scott, I'm trying to take your interpretation as seriously as possible. Can you please explain what the end of this sentence means according to your view? Perhaps if you could come up with a reasonable explanation of this "divine nature" and "one person" part, it would be easier to take your view seriously, despite the fact the context of LW 7 supports my view.

James Swan said...

James, do you see any problems with "the divine nature" part of the sentence if Jesus is the subject?

The way I see it, the second sentence has an obvious meaning:

"Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person."

The flesh being spoken of with death and sin is Mary's at the conception of Christ. At that conception, it was purged out, becoming purified flesh by the Holy Spirit, and then united with God= the incarnation.

Why is this wrong Scott?

James Swan said...

I have no problem with your constant attempts to belittle. Keep it up! If you wish to continue to be seen as one who must stoop to such measures - I truly have no problem with that. As for the "bored" comment, I meant it.

Your "bored" comment was worthy of a laugh. It's not my fault you wrote quickly on a subject you didn't know anything about. If you can't keep up with talking about three quotes in context, then by all means, use the smokescreen of "bored."

Probably when you get your books, you won't be "bored" anymore. As far as I can tell, you aren't a person who looses a historical challenge easily.

So far Scott, you're all on your own. I don't know anyone who reads LW 7 the way you do. That doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, but it sure points in that direction.

James Swan said...

ROFL! You see it your way, I see it mine. As for comments from the peanut gallery, I have already accepted one "could" read it that way, so feel free to do so.

Let's not forget this Windsorism:

"So James may feel the need to "agree to disagree" - but he's not disagreeing with me, but with Luther's own words which James himself cited from just 2 years before Luther died!"

Now though, the same text from "2 years before Luther died" could be read the way I'm suggesting.

It appears to me Scott, you've changed your dogmatism on this.

CathApol said...

JS: Probably when you get your books, you won't be "bored" anymore. As far as I can tell, you aren't a person who looses a historical challenge easily.

SW: I do not let loose of virtually any challenge easily. There has been movement of my position in a willingness to see your side of this in LW 7. There may be more movement as I read more of LW 7 (which I'm still doing) and when my other source arrives. That movement may be one way or the other.

SW: I assure you this - if it comes down to where I cannot support myself any longer, I will have the integrity to admit this.

SW: At the risk of dripping some blood in the water and starting a frenzy... I am leaning toward conceding this to you. (Looking out for sharks now...) (grin) I'm still waiting for that last resource I've ordered and still reading LW 7 and other info as I have time. (I haven't even started on fixing my laptop yet).

Scott<<<

James Swan said...

Scott,

Despite some RC commenters and bloggers (aka, the peanut gallery on your side of things), I still don't have a problem with you personally. You seem like a nice enough guy, even if we do disagree on things, and even if we still disagree on this issue.

Of course, I'm curious as to which book you're getting- I assume it Baseley, which is a good investment. I know of no other RC apologist with that book, so you'll probably be the first. Make sure to read the introductory material.

Jeph said...

I smell alibis.

CathApol said...

JS: Of course, I'm curious as to which book you're getting- I assume it Baseley, which is a good investment. I know of no other RC apologist with that book, so you'll probably be the first. Make sure to read the introductory material.

Do you refer to Christ Beyond Reason: Luther's Treatment of Faith and Reason - I may already have that one... I'd have to check, but the last resource I'm waiting on is actually LW 6. If I don't have Baseley's book, I'll not be getting it anytime soon as that would put me well over $100 spent on this discussion alone - and I have no intention of spending any more on it at this time. Perhaps you refer to Festival Sermons of Martin Luther? I know I don't have that one - but again, I can't justify spending any more on this at this time. Today is the Twelfth Day of Christmas - if you were considering sending me a gift... ;-)

CathApol said...

As for the "bored" comment too... I was not implying I am bored with this discussion, or that I have given up on it. I'm still working on the page for my website, and still waiting on that source. All I was saying is that unless I have nothing better to do, I'm not going to go back through all SIX of your articles just for the sake of addressing each one in a separate article from me. I believe I've left enough comments on each one to demonstrate active participation in the discussion - which is still not over. IF I were to go through ALL SIX of your articles, line-by-line (a couple of them I've already done that with) it would probably take me at least a week to get through them all, and I just don't have that kind of time right now.

James Swan said...

but the last resource I'm waiting on is actually LW 6

Interesting. Luther mentions Mary in LW 6 a small handful of times.

James Swan said...

Perhaps you refer to Festival Sermons of Martin Luther?

I've only mentioned this source to you 5 or 10 times. I assumed you would've needed this source to actually read Luther's 1527 sermon in context in order to write on the sermon. You act though now as if you've never heard of me mentioning the book.

IF I were to go through ALL SIX of your articles, line-by-line (a couple of them I've already done that with) it would probably take me at least a week to get through them all, and I just don't have that kind of time right now

I think going line-by-line is typically a futile way to to interact. You'll notice, I did not go line-by-line through most of what you've put forth. Of course a discussion would grow to a ridiculous volume of words! What I try to do typically is grab the main points that need responding to. With your efforts, that meant methodology and three specific Luther quotes you interpreted.

Also a line-by-line response can lead to missing the forest by looking at the trees. For instance, you did this in the comments section of your blog post here:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/12/reformers-on-mary.html

I posted the following comment: Anyone familiar with Internet theological bulletin boards and blogs have at some point come across Roman Catholic criticism of Martin Luther. Fairly common topics include: Luther’s alleged antinomianism, his rejection of certain canonical books, his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, and some even argue Luther’s partial responsibility for Nazi Germany. Interestingly though, when it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling; particularly since Luther’s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach.

The main idea of my words were: Romanists criticize Luther on a variety of subjects in order to impugn his character. But, when it comes to Luther's Marian statements, he becomes a man of good character. It was as simple as that. You though Scott, took this paragraph apart in response, never responding to this basic point. I never bothered responding to your responses because you simply missed the point.

CathApol said...

JS: The main idea of my words were: Romanists criticize Luther on a variety of subjects in order to impugn his character. But, when it comes to Luther's Marian statements, he becomes a man of good character. It was as simple as that. You though Scott, took this paragraph apart in response, never responding to this basic point. I never bothered responding to your responses because you simply missed the point.

I didn't "miss the point," I just don't think it applies in this situation (our discussion). I am not one saying Luther is a man of good character simply because he held on to some of his Marian ideology, and that has never been my point - nor even the point of the original article with its faulty citations. THE point is that even the early Protestant leaders did not wholly abandon the Blessed Virgin as much as she is abandoned today by nearly all of Protestantism - and we've even discussed and cited some Protestant leaders/pastors who express the exact same sentiment. In my humble opinion Luther's overall "character" is despicable. I have not expressed this previously because it is not the topic of this discussion, nor do I intend to make it part of this discussion or engage in it until this discussion is concluded.

MY involvement in this discussion has been two-fold:
1) To correct the citations on the original web page.
2) Discussing whether or not Luther held to his belief in the Immaculate Conception throughout his life.
Beyond these two subjects, I am trying NOT to engage in other side-topics (red herrings).

Scott<<<

James Swan said...

I didn't "miss the point," I just don't think it applies in this situation (our discussion).

Scott, you responded line by line to my comments, but never once identified my argument or responded to it. Rather you offered "other side-topics (red herrings)." I suggest you review your comments, and take responsibility for engaging my words, but missing the point.

I am not one saying Luther is a man of good character simply because he held on to some of his Marian ideology, and that has never been my point - nor even the point of the original article with its faulty citations.

I've followed this topic for quite a few years now. The article you lifted from Mariology.com states, "the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." That is, contemporary Protestants should have the Marian truths of the early Reformers- we should follow them on Mariology- that is the inference of Mariology.com.

Now, visit Luther Exposing the Myth, a Romanist website that argues Luther had no redeemable theological points to follow.

My point stands: Romanists typically consider Luther a villian, but have attempted to use him to promote Mariolatry.

In my humble opinion Luther's overall "character" is despicable.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I would argue otherwise.

MY involvement in this discussion has been two-fold:1) To correct the citations on the original web page.

Actually, I corrected your web page. So, your involvement has been taking what I post, and correcting a web page of propaganda.

CathApol said...

JS: Actually, I corrected your web page. So, your involvement has been taking what I post, and correcting a web page of propaganda.

"Actually," SOME of the corrections to the web page came from you, and where they did, you ARE being credited. I've gone beyond your corrections and added more quotes to the page too.

I remind you as well, as you seem hellbent on using derogatory terms like I "lifted" it from mariology.com - when right from the beginning you were informed, and the page itself identified from whom *I* received the series of quotes. PLUS the page included that *I* had found that this series of quotes appeared to come from mariology.com, as they were verbatim from that site and I linked the URL.

I have not been fighting you regarding the citations on that page, I would like to think there was cooperation between us in that regard. I did take up the defense of the statement on Luther and the Immaculate Conception, and that discussion is drawing to a conclusion as well.

So, enough of the posturing already, OK?

James Swan said...

"Actually," SOME of the corrections to the web page came from you, and where they did, you ARE being credited. I've gone beyond your corrections and added more quotes to the page too.

I went back and visited your blog entry “Reformers” on Mary
An Assembly of Quotes
which is still up. As I go through the page:

-Under Honor to Mary you added context I provided. Then you point out for another quote Luther was being cited out of context. That was also something I told you. Your citation of LW, vol. 51, pp. 375-376 taken from the Coming Home forum was originally lifted from me as well, though you probably weren't aware of this. You then added a quote from Grisar, another source I pointed you to. You then fixed the footnotes based on everything I provided for you, with the exception of Ben's link to WA 4.

As far as I can tell Scott, your contributions to the accuracy of your own posted web page have been at least minimal, if not nil. Perhaps your forthcoming webpage will have your input. We'll wait and see.

CathApol said...

Hmmm, should I publish the new page as "James Swan's references on Luther?" (a bit of sarcasm there)

Seriously, I have spent countless hours on this myself. You "pointing" me to a source is not the same as "providing" a source. I purchased Grisar myself - I see no need to cite you for Grisar in the final edition. The info on my blog is not the current copy I am working on - that is in my Google Docs - and will be reposted soon with the template from the ACTS website (the original did not have that).

As for what you perceive, I cannot change that. If I have done a substantial amount of the work involved - AND - am referencing primary sources, there is really no need in such cases to even mention your input... however, I will be for I remain appreciative of the time you have invested here as well.

James Swan said...

The info on my blog is not the current copy I am working on - that is in my Google Docs - and will be reposted soon with the template from the ACTS website (the original did not have that).

You go Scott! I can't wait to see the proof for Luther's lifelong belief in Mary's assumption. You'll be the first!

CathApol said...

Last I checked, we're not debating the Assumption but the Immaculate Conception. I have updated the blog version with what I have so far. Again, I am NOT finished so please do not take that as anything finalized.

James Swan said...

Last I checked, we're not debating the Assumption but the Immaculate Conception. I have updated the blog version with what I have so far. Again, I am NOT finished so please do not take that as anything finalized.

Scott,

You are indeed a hard person to dialog with. I always have to repeat and clarify with you.

1. The web page you took down and that which you are revising is called: "Reformers on Mary
An Assembly of Quotes" correct?

2. That web page contains this statement:"Assumption of the Blessed Virgin-Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:
"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."

3. Isn't this the web page you're revising? Or you're only revising some of it?

4. I've seen with this "debate" with you that you don't appear to read things carefully, and I have to clarify and repeat, often. Is this because you're just skimming through quickly? Why would I ever want to "debate" you on any other subject?

James Swan said...

Scott, I added an adendum to this previous post to reflect some of my comments from this comment section-

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-on-immaculate-conception_28.html

I would be very interested in any sort of "line by line" response you have to the adendum, since you never answered me here with the same material.

Show me in the adendum how I'm mis-reading Luther.

Thanks

James Swan said...

Scott from your post today:

The problem would remain here - Luther believed the flesh of Christ was pure already and didn’t need purging.

Jesus received flesh from his mother, that's what infants get! Therefore the flesh from Mary (according to Luther) had to be purified first, so as to not grow into sinful flesh (according to the later Luther).

The thing that most troubles me about your interpretation is that you entirely avoid other things in LW 7. Luther states things like:

That is how our Lord God treats our Savior. God allows Him to be conceived in most disgraceful incest, in order that He may assume the truest flesh, just as our flesh is poured forth, conceived, and nourished in sins. But later, when the time for assuming the flesh in the womb of the Virgin came, it was purified and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you.” Nevertheless, it was truly flesh polluted from Judah and Tamar.

You now own LW 7. how can you still post stuff like,

"Swan prefaces that citation with 'Rather she was purified at the conception of Christ.' I believe he has misread the citation (he continues to disagree with me on this point)."

"So what we have seen here is that it can be seen that Luther did indeed have a life-long belief in the Immaculate Conception."

"In 1544 arguments can validly be made either way, though in my personal opinion more weight falls on the accepting side of the debate than on the rejecting side."

Scott, it's simply laughable to say "arguments can validly be made either way" on this 1544 quote, when one reads the context. Are you ever going to deal with the other statements in LW 7? If not, why not? Why should the other statements Luther made in LW 7 be ignored? You talk about wanting to post "truth" on your website. Ignoring contexts? Why are you doing that?

James Swan said...

Windsor posts on his blog:

Luther, Martin, qtd on Coming Home Network: (LW, vol. 51, pp. 375-376) (Swan claims CHN got this from him).

LOL. Of course the one who posted the Luther quote probably got the quote from me, from this link which was a direct response to him, from years ago.

Like the person on the CHN forum, this same Romanist apologist citing this quote was arguing "In fact, Martin Luther 'praised' Mary and said that she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg." I nailed him on it, and posted the context for him. Now though, he posts the quote I provided for him as the CHN hero Romanist apologist- when he himself made the same false statements the person on CHN made. Will he admit he was making the same wrong argument about Luther "praising Mary" in his last sermon? Probably not.

Go ahead though and ask him. I'd love to hear him explain how he previously argued "In fact, Martin Luther 'praised' Mary and said that she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg" and then was the hero on the CHN forum with the same quote I provided for him.

In my response to him I stated: "Luther’s tone is quite sarcastic, and his main point is that Christ alone should be worshiped. Luther mocks those who would call upon Mary or venerate her. Luther insists that those who seek Christ through Mary do so by the use of 'reason,' and 'reason is by nature a harmful whore.'"

On the CHN forum he states now:

I found some further information on it. It looks like the page numbers you gave were wrong, and taking into account the surrounding context, Luther was being sarcastic, and was against asking Mary to pray for us, not for it

This is just another reason why I don't trust many Romanist apologists.

CathApol said...

You are indeed a hard person to dialog with. I always have to repeat and clarify with you.

So, you misspoke and made a statement about me arguing for Luther's "lifelong belief in the Assumption," when I have never argued for such a thing and the web page in question did not either. You made a simple mistake, confusing the Assumption for the Immaculate Conception - and rather than take a simple correction - you attempt to turn this back on me - and *I* and the "hard person to dialog with?"

1. The web page you took down and that which you are revising is called: "Reformers on Mary
An Assembly of Quotes" correct?


Correct.

2. That web page contains this statement:"Assumption of the Blessed Virgin-Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:
"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."


Yes, it indeed does.

3. Isn't this the web page you're revising? Or you're only revising some of it?

Yes, it is the page and I am revising quite a bit of it.

4. I've seen with this "debate" with you that you don't appear to read things carefully, and I have to clarify and repeat, often. Is this because you're just skimming through quickly? Why would I ever want to "debate" you on any other subject?

Again, it was you, Mr. Swan, who made a mistake here. The discussion or "debate" we have been engaged in regarding a "lifelong belief" has been wholly on the subject of the Immaculate Conception. The primary mention of the Assumption is that one citation from the webpage, and we've scarcely mentioned it since then, and certainly not in the context of a "lifelong belief" of Luther.

And now you use this faux pas as an excuse not to debate on a challenge you yourself made. Well, don't debate it if your content not to - but remove the statement that no Catholic is willing to debate you on the subject (of tradition), for that is quite false.

My response is here as well.

James Swan said...

And now you use this faux pas as an excuse not to debate on a challenge you yourself made. Well, don't debate it if your content not to - but remove the statement that no Catholic is willing to debate you on the subject (of tradition), for that is quite false.

LOL Scott- I did mean "Assumption." You are simply too much.

If you repost that propaganda web page, be prepared on all its points, including the Assumption.

Again Scott, you are very difficult to dialog with.

CathApol said...

JS: LOL Scott- I did mean "Assumption." You are simply too much.

Well, if you indeed meant that, then again it is not *I* who is being difficult here! Rather, after WEEKS of discussing the "lifelong belief" of Luther on the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION - you've suddenly switched gears to discuss the ASSUMPTION? "LOL" all you want, but the objective reader here knows who is trying to stay on topic and who isn't. I would have accepted the "oops, I meant the IC" - as others have made the same mistake, but to now claim you MEANT to say "Assumption" demonstrates a deliberate attempt to distract the discussion we were having.

I repeat, I am not arguing and have no plans of doing so, for a lifelong belief by Luther in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The statement on the web page merely stated that he acknowledges she is in heaven, and knows not how she got there. In short, he accepts there was an assumption - but does not know the means of that assumption. That is ALL I have to say on the matter of Luther's belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Scott<<<

PS- Just one of my pet peaves, and I blundered it... I said "if your content not to..." and that should be "if you're content not to..." in the previous comment I posted.

CathApol said...

JS: As far as I can tell Scott, your contributions to the accuracy of your own posted web page have been at least minimal, if not nil. Perhaps your forthcoming webpage will have your input. We'll wait and see.

Actually, I really don't care if my contributions are minimal, if they are, I assure you my efforts are not. To the point, as to WHO FOUND or WHO ORIGINALLY POSTED, I am not overly concerned with that, nor am I claiming I found these things on my own. You are receiving quite liberal credit for your work - when in reality, once the citation is that of a primary source - mentioning of you (or me, or Armstrong, etc.) is quite irrelevant. Again, it is not my intention to not give you credit for the work you have put forth in this endeavor. I am not concerned with how much credit *I* get either, all I want to do is make sure the citations themselves are accurate on the web page. Side discussions, such as we're having between our blogs, belong where they are - on personal blogs - where the facts can be discussed and people can determine their own mind as to the merits (or lack thereof) in those side debates.

Godspeed to you James, I wish you no ill-will through this discussion, and remain appreciative of the work you've put forth - even where we remain in disagreement with each other.

Scott<<<

James Swan said...

Well, if you indeed meant that, then again it is not *I* who is being difficult here! Rather, after WEEKS of discussing the "lifelong belief" of Luther on the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION - you've suddenly switched gears to discuss the ASSUMPTION? "LOL" all you want, but the objective reader here knows who is trying to stay on topic and who isn't. I would have accepted the "oops, I meant the IC" - as others have made the same mistake, but to now claim you MEANT to say "Assumption" demonstrates a deliberate attempt to distract the discussion we were having.

Scott,

There probably isn't anyone reading this stuff except you and I, so don't worry about "objective readers." Since you refuse to actually engage sources and context, we're simply wasting each other's time at this point.

You continually try to indict me of dishonesty. First it was I was purposefully deleting your comments. Now, I'm lying to you about something else. Give me a break Scott. I don't think you're a liar. You seem like an honest guy. On the other hand, I'm quite perplexed as to how you read things and comprehend the content, to put it as mildly as possible.

If you think re-posting that propaganda page with your insights on the immaculate conception give it a passing grade, you're quite mistaken. I haven't read your update yet, so I won't say much more other than you haven't produced any positive evidence Luther believed in some Romanist assumption doctrine.

CathApol said...

James,
I am not accusing you of dishonesty, but you did flip topics midstream on the "life-long belief" topic. We were (and I assume continue to be) discussing the life-long belief of Luther on the Immaculate Conception, and NOT the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (ABVM).

As for the deleting of comments, that was my faux pas, and I humbly admitted it within moments of seeing what really happened. Again, it happened twice - that's all - and previously I had never experienced that from the author side (and only rarely from the admin side). I was unaware that posts may show up for a moment and then be marked "spam" and "disappear" until an administrator approves them. I have been quite understanding of other posts which appear to have done the same thing since then.

I do not and am not accusing you of dishonesty. Did I accuse you of changing subjects? Yes, that's not necessarily dishonest - that's just muddying up the waters. IF we had been discussing a "life-long belief in the ABVM, THEN you would have been justified in bringing that topic up, but we were not, the page did not, does not and will not.

What I have done is "moved" the "updated" copy of that page to a new blog post and restored the "original" back to what the page originally had on it. That makes your comments/corrections you added in the combox make more sense. I have also updated the "Indices" page to include the addition "parts" you've posted as well as what I have posted recently (which isn't much from me since most of my public comments have been in comboxes).

I reiterate - I do not believe you to be handling this dishonestly. I have not been too keen on the backhanded compliments and/or outright insults, and I believe I've not responded in kind. I remain gracious and thankful for your efforts and research.

Scott<<<

James Swan said...

Scott,

As far as I can tell, the immaculate conception part of this has been over for quite a while. There's really no meaningful discussion going on anyhow: I put forth stuff, respond to your arguments, you ignore most or all of it.

Why don't you finish your entry, and when you're "done" I'll take a look at it, and comment. That is, I'll respond to the information you put forth as "american catholic truth" whether it's about the immaculate conception, the assumption, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.

If you have any sort of responses to my entries on Luther & the immaculate conception, then we'll revisit the topic. As it stands now, you don't have any, so we might as well slam the lid on things over here.

I'll be shutting down these comments since you really aren't responding to any of Luther's Mariology, or the points I've raised.