tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post1573375769843598540..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Tossing Blog Comments into the Elbe, Save OneJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86208334818452180082011-08-27T00:36:12.858-04:002011-08-27T00:36:12.858-04:00Paul, a response to your comments is above as part...Paul, a response to your comments is above as part of the blog entry.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-660213198633458402011-08-26T19:47:07.258-04:002011-08-26T19:47:07.258-04:00Hi Mr. Swan, you quote Fr. O'Hare as if his wo...Hi Mr. Swan, you quote Fr. O'Hare as if his works are on the bedstand of every Catholic apologist. I do not own any books written by him nor have I ever read any of his books. Thus your linking of my comments with his is not well placed. <br /><br />I would note in passing that my opinion was formed in part by reading Bondage of the Will, statements made by folks like Bainton, Bruce, and Filson as well as something a guy who went by the appellation of Tertiumquid wrote in 2004. Perhaps you have may have heard of that last gentleman? <br /><br />More importantly, please note I did not challenge if Fr. Luther thought Esther was canonical. Obviously, he must have thought part of it was since he included it in his Bible and thought enough of the "added" parts that Catholics like to print them in his Bible as well in a different part. My comment that you quote reflects the fact that based on what I know of the matter, (which is very little to be sure) Fr. Luther did not think very highly of it, a fact borne out by his words in "Bondage of the Will" and some other works of his besides Table Talk. One of the few favorable references I recall Luther ever make about Esther has to do with the deuterocanonical parts which he called "cornflowers" deserving to be planted in its own garden, if memory serves. Fr. Luther may have included Esther in his canon, but he was probably pinching his nose shut when he did so.<br /><br />Nope, the problem I had was not whether Fr. Luther considered the work to be canonical, but the fact that you denigrated the work of someone who once had used the maligned quote in a book which he himself later acknowledged to be a false quote and had withdrawn it from later editions of his work, a small fact that you gloss over if mention at all. My problem was that there was a high road to present your information and a low one and you chose the latter.<br /><br />Now you point fingers at how others treat you as justification for treating someone else poorly, but if one were to reflect upon it, that is merely a rationalization or an excuse for not treating others as Our Lord commanded us to do. If you do not like what some Catholic apologists and commentators say about you, why not lead the way and show them how people should be treated, not repeat what you point to as a poor example. Perhaps a dip in the Elbe would well serve all of us who tend to get all worked up over what others write about us. Would you like to join me?<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com