Opinions and Facts in Luther Studies (2)
Noting the length of your post was done to demonstrate methodology. Those who post longer messages with multiple rabbit trails really don't deserve a response, because in doing so (as I stated previously) it becomes a multi-hour endeavor, and, I would add (based on your current response), any sort of interaction with this sort of methodology leads to longer posts and even more rabbit trails. Your response fits this description. That being said, I'm going to take my own advise and offer only a few comments in response, as a coutesy to your post.
1. Your comments reflect a Romanist worldview. I deny the validity of that worldview, therefore we don't have common ground by which we can evaluate some of the facts together. That is, your opinions may make sense according to your worldview, but they are bogus according to mine (i.e., vows, Marian doctrines, Luther's doctorate, semper fides, etc.).
2. Your scripture citations reflect your personal interpretation. Since you don't have any authority to infallibly exegete Scripture, I have no desire to read your personal opinions as to what you think Scripture means. I'd ask you to only cite Rome's infallible interpretations, but there isn't really anything you could cite, and even if you could, your would be stuck interpreting those infallible interpretations. I'm not interested in your personal interpretation of Scripture.
3. The approaches to Luther as put forth by Grisar and Denifle are no longer that of Roman Catholic historians. Even the current Pope, while still a Cardinal, recognized that Roman Catholic Luther studies previous to Joseph Lortz were more polemical and psychological than accurate. I would speculate Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion is more informed than yours on Grisar and Denifle.
4. There are areas in which we do share a common ground: the area of checking facts:
a) You were in error about Luther quoting directly (or expounding on) Homiliae II of Chrysostom. You are also in error as to Luther's overall opinion (as demonstrated from his collective writings) about Chrysostom.
b) Luther's Table Talk is not a primary source by which to establish facts about Luther. Even Roman Catholic scholars admit this (i.e. Posset, Wicks, etc.).
c) Luther did not believe "once saved always saved" but rather believed salvation could be lost (See the Smalcald Articles).
d) You utilize a version on Luther's Turmerlebnis that is speculation, not fact, but attempt to pass it off as fact and not speculation.
e) Psychohistory is not history. Thus, there is no way for you to know "Luther was quite mad."
f) Grisar is merely one voice in regard to dating Luther's tower experience. Had you actually known Luther studies, you would be aware that various scholars offer different dates.
Then I was offered this response. To which I stated:
Opinion and fact in Luther studies (3)
I must make a retraction of something I wrote previously. I stated, "There are areas in which we do share a common ground: the area of checking facts." After your last post, I realize this isn't the case at all. You were directly confronted with your errors on a number of basic facts, that, anyone who checked them, be they a Romanist, Protestant, Muslim, Scientologist, Wiccan, or Democrat, etc., should have been able (granting an average IQ) to ascertain the truth of those basic facts. You owned up to none of your errors. Perhaps others here have time for nonsense, but I don't.
See this earlier post, take special note of point 4, a-f. I would add as well, You were in error when you stated, "more important however, he gave birth to relativism and naturalism."
I'm moving on to more honest interactions.