The Fans Speak Out

The following fan club testimony is from this blog post.

1. 
   

   Dozie said,

   January 7, 2013 at 2:17 pm

   “Yet the problem in part as James complains, is Dozie’s link to James’s article at BeggersAll. The same which does nothing more than walk through Luther’s statement and put it in context.”

   I was going to let Ron and GB have the last word on this but now something has to be said about James Swan’s defense/adoption of Luther’s abominable statements.

   First, I disagree that James Swan’s article “does nothing more than walk through Luther’s statement and put it in context.” One has to appreciate the fact that James Swan has earned the reputation of being a Luther apologist and has been defending Luther in all manner of situations for some time now. In this role as Luther apologist, one has to ask: “how many match sticks does it take to burn down the house”? How many Luther bombastic statements does it take to discredit Luther and all those who defend him? Intelligent people bring up statements attributable to Luther (statements that ordinarily would not be indefensible) but James Swan in his singular role attempts, in the name of contextualization, to pull the blanket over some people’s eyes. In the particular instance in question, Luther claims: “Your sin cannot cast you into hell”. An unbiased person attempting to contextualize this statement will be obligated, first of all, to distance him/her self from the statement. There is nothing in James Swan’s analysis that indicates he finds the statement offensive or that the statement may create the wrong impression in others. He does not say that “the statement is misleading, but here is the context” or that the statement is wrong on its face. No, he simply justifies the statement by supplying or making up contexts that really sound bizarre to thinking Christians.

   Interestingly, even Lutherans are not impressed with James Swan’s hypocritical attempt to cover up for Luther. I know Paul McCain is not. Here’s a question put to James Swan by a Lutheran woman:

   “Dear James, it comes down to the question: if Luther was so right, why a Calvin? Does it not?” (This question was left unanswered). And then in the same comment, the lady points out: “And all the messes James is cleaning up, are just not as interesting to Lutherans who want to be more interested in the gospel than in Luther” (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19795707&postID=8878445420994759274).

   This Lutheran woman lady realizes that Luther created a mess which even Lutherans are not willing to touch; James Swan enters to clean up Luther but he does not find Lutheranism persuasive enough to sign on the dotted line. This is a sad commentary on the nature of Protestantism – happy in division. But the question remains: if Luther was so right, why Calvin?
   
   
   

2. jamesswan1 said,

   January 7, 2013 at 3:32 pm

   “One has to appreciate the fact that James Swan has earned the reputation of being a Luther apologist and has been defending Luther in all manner of situations for some time now.”

   I thought I was simply a person with a blog.

   “In this role as Luther apologist, one has to ask: “how many match sticks does it take to burn down the house”? How many Luther bombastic statements does it take to discredit Luther and all those who defend him?”

   Where Luther was in error, I’ve pointed that out.

   “Intelligent people bring up statements attributable to Luther (statements that ordinarily would not be indefensible) but James Swan in his singular role attempts, in the name of contextualization, to pull the blanket over some people’s eyes.”

   This sort of statement is a good example of why you’ve been banned from my blog, off and on, over the years. You are one of of maybe 3 or 4 people that have earned the honor of having your comments immediately dumped off the Beggars All blog.

   “In the particular instance in question, Luther claims: “Your sin cannot cast you into hell”. An unbiased person attempting to contextualize this statement will be obligated, first of all, to distance him/her self from the statement. There is nothing in James Swan’s analysis that indicates he finds the statement offensive or that the statement may create the wrong impression in others. He does not say that “the statement is misleading, but here is the context” or that the statement is wrong on its face. No, he simply justifies the statement by supplying or making up contexts that really sound bizarre to thinking Christians.”

   The context of Luther’s comment was provided in my blog entry for anyone to read. It’s not my fault if you can’t see past your own Romanism to understand what Luther is saying. Before I searched out the context, it was close to impossible to know where the quote was from. So you tell me who’s being dishonest here: the person that originally posted the comment without a reference, or my blog article which provides the context, and also a link to the writing it was taken from.

   “Interestingly, even Lutherans are not impressed with James Swan’s hypocritical attempt to cover up for Luther. I know Paul McCain is not.”

   That’s news to me. I’ve had cordial interaction with Rev. McCain for a few years, and I don’t recall ever having any problems with him. If you have any comments from Rev. McCain implying he’s “not impressed with James Swan’s hypocritical attempt to cover up for Luther,” I certainly haven’t seen any such statements. Certainly Rev. McCain doesn’t appreciate my Reformed theology, but I don’t recall ever being criticized by him for any of the obscure Luther quotes I’ve looked up. In fact, Rev. McCain himself has posts that refute the nonsense attributed to Luther.

   “Here’s a question put to James Swan by a Lutheran woman”

   A Lutheran woman, by the way, who is a friend of mine and who does appreciate my Luther entries.

   “This Lutheran woman lady realizes that Luther created a mess which even Lutherans are not willing to touch;”

   That’s nonsense. In fact “this Lutheran woman” actually helps me with translating Luther’s German so I can complete some of my entries. She’s actually been a great help over the years.

   “James Swan enters to clean up Luther but he does not find Lutheranism persuasive enough to sign on the dotted line. This is a sad commentary on the nature of Protestantism – happy in division. But the question remains: if Luther was so right, why Calvin?”

   It’s odd how you can read my blog in such a Talmudic way and yet miss the obvious: It’s often the case that what Luther is saying (or not saying) isn’t really the point- It’s the fact that Romanism, particularly pre-1920 Romanists and recent online e-pologists have a terrible time with contexts, that is, if they even bother to look up a context.