scotju said (9:13 AM, May 28, 2010):
Hey Ben M, what is this thing that Calvin and Luther had for filth, especially feces? Matt Schultz said ol' Jean had his scholarly side, but it sounds to me it's just a load of you know what.
But on a more serious note, I remember back when I was in the Worldwide Church of God, that similar langauge was used from the pulpit to denounce those who dared question the holy will of Herbert Armstrong. His favorite word was vomit. He would say things like false ministers were vomiting garbage on the congergation. However, like Lu&Cal, he did on occassion, use the langauge of excrement. I remember reading a letter he sent out around the time of his first wife's death accusing the church being full of filth, like his wife's impacted bowels. So I has to wonder what was really on these guy's minds in their 'reforming work.'
The Apostle Paul said (circa 60 AD):
More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things – indeed, I regard them as dung!1 – that I may gain Christ, (Philippians 3:8)
1. tn The word here translated “dung” [Greek: skubala] was often used in Greek as a vulgar term for fecal matter. As such it would most likely have had a certain shock value for the readers. This may well be Paul’s meaning here, especially since the context is about what the flesh produces. (Source)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
I think Scot was refering to the frequency of the term... Paul used it once, the others, seemingly, a lot.
Brilliant observation, Lvka.
Matt, the title of your post was deceitfull. My comment was about Calvin&Luther's (and by extention, Herbert Armstrong's) common use of vulgar langauge. To justify C&L's use of verbal abuse by tying it to Paul's remark is IMHO blasphemous. Paul wasn't verbally abusing anyone, he was describing his feelings about his former way of life. Cal, Lu, and Herbie however, used that kind of langage to humiliate and destroy anyone who opposed them.
My 2 cents-
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/01/martin-luthers-volatile-language.html
scotju writes:
Matt, the title of your post was deceitfull.
Showing what your criticisms of Luther and Calvin entail is not deceitful.
Paul wasn't verbally abusing anyone, he was describing his feelings about his former way of life.
The verse is in context with Philippians 3:2-4. Paul calls those who foist the means of the "flesh" on Christians "dogs" (NASB). These means, including all others associated with them, are then called skubala. So Paul thinks these false teachers are "dogs" trying to get people involved with skubala.
That sounds just like saying false teachers are "vomiting" or "full of filth."
Cal, Lu, and Herbie however, used that kind of langage to humiliate and destroy anyone who opposed them.
You mean like Acts 13:9-10?
But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, and said, "You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord?
Seems like "verbal abuse" to "destroy anyone who opposed" can even be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Thanks, James. The final paragraph and quotation of your piece are especially helpful.
Protestant apologists for Luther (and Calvin) have always mininized his se of dirty langage. I remember when I was in the Wisconsin Ev Lutheran Synod, I read a synod published book on Luther's anti-semeticism. It had a chapter on Luther's potty mouth. It was a pathetic attempt to claim Lu did it because everybody else did it. When I left the WELS several years later, I discovered, surprise, surprise!, that his foul talk was condemned by folks back then, too. Yep, Sir Thomas More got it right: Luther vomited ----.
Your appeal to Paul is silly. Paul was not verbally abusing anyone. In Phillipians, he was warning Christians against Judaizers. He did not use obscene langauge. In Acts, he called Bar-Jesus, a son of the devil. The langauge is not abusive, it is descriptive. Calvin and Luther were abusive. Luther regularly used harsh inflamatory langauge in dealing with anyone who had the gall to disagree with him. Calvin, likewise.
scotju,
You aren't interacting with the reasons I gave for my position. You are just asserting your position is true. Are you able to explain why the kind of language Paul used is not comparable to the kind of language Calvin and Luther used?
The langauge is not abusive, it is descriptive.
Which begs the question in your favor. If Calvin and Luther's language was accurate, it wouldn't be abusive. But you just assume it is inaccurate.
Ben,
I deleted your last post.
No profanity allowed.
Although if I recall, Roman Catholic apologist Mark Shea likes to use profanity on his blog, so if you must post profanity, he could serve as your creative outlet.
Now there would be a good quest for you- why don't you interact with a living human being like Mark Shea and help him to reach the same moral platitude you wish Luther would've strived for.
That is, you could use your vast amount of quotes and moral apologetic to actually help one of your fellow Romanists.
Here's one hard-hitting scatological comment from Calvin - and indeed, many RCs and EOs really do not seem to realize (or care) how offensive some of the practices of their churches are to Bible-faithful Protestants, having become hardened to such stuff themselves:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/blastjj.htm
"Just as a 'maistre Fifi' mocks those who hold their noses (in his presence), because he has handled filth for so long that he can no longer smell his own foulness; so likewise do idolaters make light of those who are offended by a stench they cannot themselves recognize. Hardened by habit, they sit in their own excrement, and yet believe they are surrounded by roses"
(Excuse, CR 6.595. ['Maistre Fifi' is a sixteenth-century French slang term for a latrine or sewer cleaner.])"
Mr Swan, you have a double standard. I read Ben M's post on Lu-Lu's potty mouth. While I think he should have put dashes to indicate when Marty used the "s" word, I think it's hilarious that you censored the words of your great hero. Why so prudish Mr Swan? Does the real Luther make you just a little uneasy? Take comfort in the fact he even makes the Lutherans a little queasy. I remember talking to one of my WELS pastors about Martin's ahem langauge in his sermons and informal talk. The pastor told me Luther would not be allowed to preach like that in the church today. It's sad when a religious group shows disrespects for it's founder. It's the begining of liberalism! LOL!
Hey Ben M, thanks for the one up! Remember, dash out Luther's nasty words. We don't want to ruffle Mr Swan's feathers!
I think it's hilarious that you censored the words of your great hero.
Obviously, Luther isn't as great of a hero to me as you think.
The fact is, I'm not a Lutheran, and I could list 20 things off the top of my head in which I disagree with Luther.
While I think he should have put dashes to indicate when Marty used the "s" word,
Indeed, Ben's comment would have remained.
The majority of Roman Catholics I know off-line freely uses vulgarity and profanity.
My suspicion is Ben does as well, that's why he so freely posted what he did.
You don't disagree with him that much Swannee. You defend him all the time on this website which you named after a quote from the old boy.
But the “profanity” was Luther’s, not mine! Besides, this is historical info; it ought not to be censored.
I'll censor whatever I want to. I don't allow overt profanity, and I don't care whose it is. That you so easily put it forth as "history" without having the wisdom to use discretion leads me to conclude our standards are quite different. I wouldn't go over to your blog (if you had one), and quote Mark Shea's profanity to you. I suggest if you want to use that language (like it appears you do), go over to Mr. Shea's blog.
My argument has never been that Luther should be allowed to use profanity or say hateful things against the Jews. My argument is that Romanists caricature Luther as if every one of his writings is written with profanity or hatred against the Jews. this isn't accurate at all, as I've documented elsewhere. The harsh language was the exception, not the rule when one surveys is total life output.
People like you Ben sift through Luther's writings, making him something other than he was. I find your alleged historical methods highly offensive .
I don't condone Luther harsh language, I never have. He was a sinner, just like every human (with the exception of Jesus Christ) that has ever lived.
I'm not sure exactly when some of the Roman Catholics who visit this blog will ever figure something like this out- I'm not arguing that Luther was an infallible saint. I argue many Roman Catholics have no idea how to honestly read history when it comes to the Reformation. I've demonstrated this time and again.
You don't disagree with him that much Swannee. You defend him all the time on this website which you named after a quote from the old boy.
Scotju,
You are about 1 comment away from having your coments banned from this blog entirely. I suggest you choose your words carefully if you'd like to continue to comment here.
Jimmie, I made my obsevations about Luther being "your big hero" on what I see one the first page of your blog. At the top, there is a picture of ML nailing up the thesis's and the quote from whence you title your blog. Scrolling down I see on the right side of your front page: Obscure Luther quotes, Master Archives: Martin Luther Papers and Blogs by James Swan, picture of Luther's Works Vol. 16-18, a picture of the seven-headed Luther, and that last picture of Luther wearing that t-shirt. So why shouldn't I think, based on what I have seen on your front page, that Marty is "your big hero"? I have a pictre of BVM and Jesus of the Sacred Heart in my living room, and I don't take offence if someone says I'm a Catholic, so why should you be so hyper-sensitive if I believe that Luther is "your big hero" because you posted so many pictures of him on your start page?
I do consider Luther a great person from Church history.
Your comments will be deleted if you continue using terms like "Swanee" and "Jimmie". I deleted DA's comments a while back for calling me John Q Doe.
If you want to be insulting to me, do it on your own blog. If you can't behave, go elsewhere.
James, I don't understand why you consider me calling you S----e or J----e to be insulting. I've been called by various verisons of my Christian name and surname and I never took offense to it, so why should you? Because I hate to (knowningly) hurt anyone's feelings, I won't use those names anymore. But, IMHO, yor demand made you look petty, smallminded, thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive. After all, it's not like a called you a dirty-name fellow.
But, IMHO, yor demand made you look petty, smallminded, thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive. After all, it's not like a called you a dirty-name fellow.
Yes, there you have it, the love, respect, and compassion from a Roman Catholic who possesses the entire truth. All this while chastising Luther. Great stuff.
The thread is officially closed.
Post a Comment