tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post116990386171519598..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Who to Trust on Luther Biographies?James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1170156642371635632007-01-30T06:30:00.000-05:002007-01-30T06:30:00.000-05:00manualman-Thank you for a fair, well-constructed r...manualman-<BR/><BR/>Thank you for a fair, well-constructed response. I have only time to answer one of your comments:<BR/><BR/><I>Your readers might be better served if you move on from those defects and note more factual flaws instead of harping on OHare's lack of charity and the difficulty to you to check him.</I><BR/><BR/>I have covered "factual flaws" by O'Hare, that is, by checking some of the quotes O'Hare uses, putting them in an actual context,and explain where O'Hare is mistaken. For instance, I've done this in my papers on Luther and the canon, and in my paper, "Did Luther say, "Be a Sinner and Sin Boldly"?, and a number of other times in various blog entries.<BR/><BR/>I've often planned on combining all these scattered times I've explored a text cited by O'Hare into one large paper, for the reason you mention. <BR/><BR/>People tend to think something like, "Well, ok, O'Hare villifies Luther, but that doesn't mean he gets his facts wrong." O'Hare is not wrong in every citation, or in every fact. He does though get some of the "facts" wrong- usually because he's so intent on villifing Luther, he misses the context Luther said "x" in.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/> JamesJames Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1170083998973867562007-01-29T10:19:00.000-05:002007-01-29T10:19:00.000-05:00manualman P.S.I certainly didn't gleefully recomme...manualman P.S.<BR/><BR/>I certainly didn't gleefully recommend the book to anyone. Go on back to CAF and it should be clear that I originally posted the thread because I was shocked at the characterization of Luther to the point where I wanted to input of others to verify if what I was reading was reliable.<BR/><BR/>How can you call that a gleeful recommendation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1170083576925752822007-01-29T10:12:00.000-05:002007-01-29T10:12:00.000-05:00-manualman again-I fear my statement is a bit misi...-manualman again-<BR/><BR/>I fear my statement is a bit misinterpreted. Perhaps you are more used to dealing with debaters trying to refute you than people attempting to be cautious as to what they read. I did not mean to insinuate that you were a malicious propagandist, merely that I already knew we had disparate world views and theological perspectives. Your story of investigating Luther is impressive, but rather time intensive! My choices are a bit more limited in my current state of life and reading time available.<BR/><BR/>It's not personal, I just happen to NOT be one of the multitude who thinks he is impervious to advertising (and other persuasion techniques). Therefore, I try to monitor how much influence I grant to those I don't yet trust, versus those I do. (Which is also why I watch little TV!)<BR/><BR/>I DID note your link to your website, but having been there before when you once (correctly) noted at CAF that the "snow covered dung heap" appears to be a myth (nice job), I somehow missed that it wasn't a generic link, but a specific blog link. Unlike forums, blogs aren't much familiar to me.<BR/><BR/>As an item of constructive criticism, you might want to refine your blog on OHare a bit. Your work seems to mostly focus on 1. The fact that OHare generally assumes the worst about Luther's motives and intentions. <BR/>2. His citations are not complete or scholarly.<BR/> Absolutely true! But anybody who has spent a few minutes in the book already knows this.<BR/><BR/>Your readers might be better served if you move on from those defects and note more factual flaws instead of harping on OHare's lack of charity and the difficulty to you to check him. After all, if a lack of charity disqualifies the legitimacy of one's reasoning, then Luther's own work ought to be in the dustbin too. Just as Luther might be excused by his apologists as being frustrated, you might do well to remember what the English speaking world was like for catholics in 1910 (maybe you've heard of the Klan?). Same (flimsy) excuse.<BR/><BR/>Your critique as of now, gives the impression that you did not find substantive defects in the factual information presented by OHARE, but merely a plethora of examples of ad hominem, invective and cheap shots. Consider spending more time on the historical content and value of the book for the benefit of readers who think they can step over the polemics.<BR/><BR/>Lest you think me argumentative, I should point out that your participation in the CAF is why I have put OHare on the shelf for now until I have allowed more even headed authors to inform me of his life. I have not merely blown you off. But that doesn't mean I entirely trust you either. As one who seems to believe we are 'beggars all', you shouldn't take offense at that!<BR/><BR/>Peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1170074878018749252007-01-29T07:47:00.000-05:002007-01-29T07:47:00.000-05:00Curiously, when I asked myself the same question a...Curiously, when I asked myself the same question as this blog title "Who to Trust on Luther Biographies?", I sat back and thought - hmmmm, I can't think of many even handed folks after all, except maybe ... James Swan. After perusing this site since its inception and watching James go to work on other Forums in his earlier years, I could honestly say that James is very, very fair, honest, duly researched, and does an all around great job at what he does. Therefore, I cast my vote for Jimmy!Discipled by Himhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06166951083543729038noreply@blogger.com