Luther: "The Book of Esther I Toss into the Elbe" a 19th Century Explanation

A few years back I explained how the famous Table Talk quote from Luther "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe" was actually a mis-citation that was actually in regard to Esdras. I've mentioned this a number of times over the years.

What's interesting about this Luther quote is it was corrected some time ago, at least as far back as the  19th Century, yet it still pops up on fresh on the Internet.  Here was a great overview of the quote from the 19th Century, in which Julius Charles Hare corrected the great Sir William Hamilton:

 For instance, when our eyes run through the Reviewer's anthology, one of the most startling sentences is this: "The Book of Esther I toss into the Elbe." If a person familiar with Luther's style lights upon this sentence, he will recognize the great Reformer's unmistakable mark in the words, / toss into the Elbe; and it will be a pang to him to find Luther applying such rude words to any book, even the least important, in the Holy Scriptures. But he did not. The Reviewer asserts that he gives us Luther's "own words, literally translated:" Mr Ward asserts that the Reviewer's name is "a sufficient voucher for the accuracy of his quotations:" and yet Luther never said anything of the sort about the book of Esther. The original of this "literal translation" is plainly the following sentence in Luther's Tabletalk, Das dritte Such Esther werfe ich in die Elbe: The third book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. Why the Reviewer left out the word third in his "literal translation," it is for him to explain. Were one to follow the example he sets in imputing the vilest motives to all persons in authority in the University of Oxford, one should call this a fraudulent imposition. Was he puzzled to make out what could be meant by the third book of Esther? and did he intend tacitly to correct the text? When words are made the ground of an accusation, they should be examined with scrupulous care; and if it appear requisite to alter them, this should be expressly stated. Here the next sentence plainly shews that a totally different correction is needed. "In the fourth book, in that which Esther dreamt, there are pretty, and also some good sayings, as, Wine is strong, the king stronger, women still stronger, but truth the strongest of all" I quote from Walch's edition, Vol. xxn. 2079, and have no means of examining older copies of the Tischredren; but the old English translation speaks of the third book of Hester. So that the error  gross as it is, seems to have belonged to the original text. For there can be no question that Luther had been talking, not of a non-existent third and fourth book of Esther, but of the book of Ezra or Esdras: though there is still much confusion in the report of his words; since the argument about strength does not stand in the fourth book, but in the third, the first of the Apocryphal ones; those of Ezra and Nehemiah being numbered as the first two. Thus Luther's words are nothing but a Lutheran mode of saying what Jerome actually did, when he cast these Apocryphal books out of his Version, as he says in his Preface to the book of Ezra: "Nec quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est; nec apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur; quia et apud Hebraeos Ezrae Neemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur, et quae non habentur apud illos, nec de viginti quatuor senibus sunt, procul abjicienda." Nor can anything well go beyond Jerome's contemptuous expressions about the same books in his pamphlet against Vigilantius (bI). Assuredly too the next sentence quoted by the Reviewer,— "I am so an enemy to the book of Esther that I would it did not exist; for it Judaizes too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness,"—though here again the English Translation agrees with Walch in applying Luther's words to the Book of Esther, was in fact spoken of the Apocryphal books of Esdras. For the whole passage in the Tabletalk is as follows : " When the Doctor was correcting the translation of the second Book of the Maccabees, he said, I dislike this book and that of Esther so much, that I wish they did not exist; for they Judaize too much, and have much heathenish extravagance. Then Master Forster said, The Jews esteem the book of Esther more than any of the prophets" The combination of the book with that of the Maccabees, — which the Reviewer ought not to have omitted, — as well as Forster's remark, leaves no doubt that Luther spoke of the book of Esdras (b j). These blunders shew how unsafe it is to build any conclusions on the authority of the Tabletalk.

Interesting Catholic Answers from Catholic Answers

For those of you who have trouble understanding the interpretation of Christianity put forth by the Roman Catholic magisterium, Catholic Answers has a section on their discussion forums where you can post a question and someone on staff will answer the question. In other words, you can get an interpretation of the interpretation and then personally interpret it for yourself.

Here were a few recent interesting questions and answers. I've tried to abridge some of these, so feel free to follow the links to the complete versions. I simply posted some of the things that jumped out at me. This morning I went through a number of these questions with a family member who grew up Roman Catholic, and went to a Roman Catholic school.

Question: is chewing gum while fasting ok?
Answer: Gum is not food. It does not break a fast.

Question: Are Horoscopes sinful?
Answer: "Reading a daily horoscope just for laughs may not be a sin, but it could qualify as a near occasion of sin. That is because the temptation is always present to give credence to the "predictions."

Question: Should priests baptize adopted children of gay couples?
Answer: "Unless there is danger of death, in which case anyone may baptize a child below the age of reason, one or both parents must give their consent and there must be "a well-founded hope" that the child will be raised Catholic. The non-Catholic mother would have to consent to the baptism and the priest or deacon performing the baptism would have to be satisfied that the child would be raised Catholic. Given the fact that homosexual relationships are very often short-term, it is possible that the Catholic "mother" may well not be a part of this child's life long enough to form the child in the Catholic faith (presuming this Catholic could properly form this child in the faith). If you know of a balanced, orthodox priest or deacon in their area, you might give his name to the women and recommend that they consult him for more information about the Church's requirements for infant baptism."

Question: What ability is required to consummate the marital relationship?
Answer: "What is required is that the couple must be able to perform the act of intercourse—even though the man may be impotent or the woman may be sterile. But to consummate the marriage, they must be able to engage in the act."

Question: Did I sin by not going to Sunday Mass?
Answer: "If you forgot or were ill or missed Mass through no fault of your own, you did not sin. But if your just didn't care or were lazy, then it is a mortal sin. "

Question: Is jealousy a sin?
Answer: "Thoughts are just thoughts. It's what we do as the result of them than can cause harm."

Question: What do I do about going to Mass if I live on a remote island?
Answer: "The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin."

Question: How is someone who claims to be Christian yet aggressively promotes abortion and "gay marriage" more Christian than a Mormon?
Answer: "When we say that Mormons are not Christians, we don’t mean that they do not act in a Christian way. Many do and undoubtedly are closer to God than many wayward Christians. We are saying that their understanding of the Trinity and Jesus is so defective, that it cannot be called Christian."

Question: Is coffee permitted before Mass?
Answer: "If you can finish your coffee at least one hour before Communion, then it is fine to drink it on the way to church. Otherwise, coffee does break the Communion fast."

Question: Did Mary suffer labor pains?
Answer: "To the best of my knowledge, the Church hasn't defined one way or the other whether or not Mary suffered in childbirth. It is within the realm of acceptable theological opinion to hold either that Mary was free of childbirth pain because she was free of original sin; or that, even though she was not subject to this punishment of original sin, that she may have suffered it to be in deeper conformity to her suffering Son, Jesus Christ. Until the Church decides one way or the other, Catholics are free to hold either opinion."

Roman Convert Needs a Job....

I recently listened to this conversion story, and the talk ended with this short statement (mp3).  Now in this economy, I certainly feel bad for anyone not employed, even those people I may have theological differences with.

 However:

1. I simply don't understand what the point of having a teaching magisterium is and a priesthood if  a guy simply wants to "do as a Catholic something similar to what I've done as a Protestant minister for so many years, namely, stand up in front of people with a Bible in my hands and just make complicated stuff understandable." Rome is supposed to make God and the Church understandable. Now, we've got people who want to interpret the interpreter.

2. As a Roman apologist, one needs to carry more than a Bible up front. One should probably bring as many infallible decrees one can find, a good edition of Canon law, the Catechism, and it wouldn't hurt to bring a lot of papal encyclicals. I'd say carry "Sacred Tradition" as well, but that's a bit like bringing Bigfoot along.

Losing Rome's converts

Magdi Allam, Muslim Convert, Leaves Catholic Church, Says It's Too Weak Against Islam

"Allam, who has called Islam an 'intrinsically violent ideology,' said his main reason for leaving the church was its perceived "religious relativism, in particular the legitimization of Islam as a true religion."

Roman Catholicism Against the Reformers and Protestant Methodology

I've been doing Reformation research for quite few years now.  This is the best overview I've ever come across  describing the mindset of  Roman Catholicism toward the Reformers, and the Protestant apologetic needed to be employed against this mindset. It was written in 1856, and yet almost perfectly describes much of what I've seen over the last ten years of interacting with Rome's apologetic material against the Reformers, and likewise expresses some of the methodology I've used to respond. 

The great general position which Romanists are anxious to establish by all they can collect against the Reformers, from their writings or their lives, from their sayings or their doings, is this, that it is very unlikely that God would employ such men in the accomplishment of any special work for the advancement of His gracious purposes. In dealing with this favourite allegation of Romanists, Protestants assert and undertake to prove the following positions:—1st, That the allegation is irrelevant to the real merits of the controversy between us and the Church of Rome, which can be determined only by the standard of the written word; 2d, That the allegation is untrue,—in other words, that there is nothing about the character of the Reformers as a whole which renders it in the least unlikely that God employed them in His own special gracious work; and, 3d, That the general principle on which the allegation is based can be applied in the way of retort, with far greater effect, to the Church of Rome. Protestants, by establishing these three positions, effectually dispose of the Romish allegation. It is with the second of them only that we have at present to do, and even on it we do not mean to enlarge.

Romanists have taken great pains to collect every expression from the writings of the Reformers, and to bring forward every incident in their lives, that may be fitted—especially when they are all presented nakedly and in combination—to produce an unfavourable impression as to their motives and actions. In the prosecution of this work, they are usually quite unscrupulous about the completeness of their quotations and the accuracy of their facts, and in this way they sometimes manage to make out, upon some particular points, what may appear to ignorant or prejudiced readers to be a good case. In dealing with the materials which papists have collected for depreciating the character of the Reformers, and thus establishing the improbability of God having employed them as His instruments in restoring divine truth, and in reforming the church, there are three steps in the process that ought to be attended to and discriminated, in order to our arriving at a just and fair conclusion:—

1st, We must carefully ascertain the true facts of the case as to any statement or action that may have been ascribed to them or to any one of them; and we will find, in not a few instances, that the allegations found in ordinary popish works on the subject are inaccurate, defective, or exaggerated,—that the quotation is garbled and mutilated, or may be explained and modified by the context,—or that the action is erroneously or unfairly represented in some of its features or accompanying circumstances.

2d, When the real facts of the case are once ascertained, the next step should be to form a fair and reasonable estimate of what they really involve or imply, taking into account, as justice demands, the natural character and tendencies of the men individually, the circumstances in which they were placed, the influences to which they were subjected, the temptations to which they were exposed, and the general impressions and ordinary standard on such subjects in the age and country in which they lived.

3d, There is a third step necessary in order to form a right estimate of the common popish charges against the Reformers, and of the soundness of the conclusion which they wish to deduce from them, viz., that we should not confine our attention to their blemishes and infirmities, real or alleged, greater or smaller, but take a general view of their whole character and proceedings, embracing, as far as we have materials, all that they felt, and said, and did, and endeavour in this way to form a fair estimate of what were their predominating desires, motives, and objects, of what it was that they had really at heart, and of what was the standard by a regard to which they strove to regulate their conduct.

A careful application of these obviously just and fair principles will easily dispose of the materials which papists have so assiduously collected for the purpose of injuring the character of the Reformers, and convince every intelligent and honest inquirer, that there is not one of the leading men among them who has not, with all his errors and infirmities, left behind him sufficient and satisfactory evidence, so far as men can judge of their fellowmen, that he had been born again' of the word of God through the belief of the truth, that he had honestly devoted himself to God's service, and that in what he did for the cause of the Reformation he was mainly influenced by a desire to promote the glory of God, to advance the prosperity of Christ's kingdom, and to secure the spiritual welfare of men.

Bayle's Dictionary: Old Slanders Against the Reformers

One of my interests is tracking down Reformation apocrypha and myths. Today while reading William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, I came across this interesting snippet:

With such views and impressions prevailing among Romanists, it was not to be expected that the Reformers, who did so much damage to the Church of Rome, would be treated with justice or decency. Accordingly, we find that a most extraordinary series of slanders against the character of the leading Reformers, utterly unsupported by evidence, and wholly destitute of truth and plausibility, were invented and propagated by Romish writers. Luther and the other Reformers were charged, in popish publications, with heinous crimes, of which no evidence was or could be produced; and these accusations, though their falsehood was often exposed, continued long to be repeated in most popish books. With respect to the more offensive accusations that used to be adduced against the Reformers, a considerable check was given to the general circulation of them, by the thorough exposures of their unquestionable falsehood which were put forth by Bayle in his Dictionary, a work which was extensively read in the literary world. Papists became ashamed to advance, in works intended for general circulation, allegations which Bayle's Dictionary had prepared the reading public to regard, without hesitation, as deliberate falsehoods, though they continued to repeat them in works intended for circulation among their own people. Scarcely any Romish writers who pretended to anything like respectability, have, for a century and a half, ventured to commit themselves to an explicit assertion of the grosser calumnies which used to be adduced against the Reformers. Some of them, however, have shown a considerable unwillingness to abandon these charges entirely, and like still to mention them as accusations which were at one time adduced, and which men may still believe if they choose.

I had never heard of Bayle's Dictionary, but it certainly seemed like that was a source I needed to have. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Google Books had many of these volumes, including the volume with the entry on Luther.  Unfortunately, the scan is poor. Here was the first set of myths. Bayle first presents them, and then gives detailed footnotes explaining them. I wrote out the first footonte explanation, and half of the second :

Martin Luther, reformer of the church in the 16th century. His history is so well known, and is found in so many books, and particularly in Moreri, that I shall not trouble my self to repeat it. I shall principally insist on the falsehoods which have been published concerning him. No regard has been had in this either to Probability, or to the rules of the art of slandering: and the authors of them have assumed all the confidence of those who fully believe, that the public will blindly adopt all their stories, be they ever so absurd. They have dared to publish,  that an Incubus begat him [A] and have even falsified the day of his birth, in order to frame a scheme of his nativity to his disadvantage [B], They accuse him of having confessed, that after struggling for ten years together with his conscience, he at last became perfectly master of it, and fell into Atheism [C]. They add, that he frequently said, he would renounce his portion in Heaven, provided God would allow him a pleasant life for a hundred years.

[A] They have dared to publish that an incuubus begat him. Father Maimbourg has been so equitable as to reject this ridiculous story. 'He was born, says he , at Isleben in the county of Mansfeld, in the year 1483, not of an Incubus, as some, to render him more odious, have written, without any appearance of truth, but as other men are born, a thing never called in question till he became an Heresiarch, which he might easily be, without any need of substituting a devil in the place of his father, John Luder, or   disgracing his mother, Margaret Linderman,, by  'so infamous a birth.' Such fables are hardly to be pardoned in those who mention them only as witty 'conceits. This is what an Italian Theatin has done in a poem- in which he supposes, that Luther, born of Megera, one of the furies, was sent from hell into Germany. This is more monkish than poetical.

[B] They have falsified the day of his birth, in order to frame a scheme of his nativity to his disadvantage. Martin Luther was born the tenth of November, betwixt eleven and twelve of the dock at night, at Isleben, whither his mother was come on account of the fair, not thinking she was so near her time: for we must know  her husband, a man of mean condition, and who worked in the mines, did not then live at Isleben, but in the village of Meza. The good woman, being examined by Melancthon, concerning  the year was brought to bed of Martin Luther, answered, that she did not very well remember it; she only knew the day and the hour. It is therefore out of pure malice, that Florimond de Remond places his birth on the twenty second of October. He thought  thereby to confirm the astrological predictions of Junetinus, who by the horoscope of his day, has defamed Martin Luther, as much as he could. This astrologer was strongly confuted by a professor of Strasburg, who showed, that, by the rules of Astrology, Luther was to be a great man.

The Catholic Answers Forums, James White, and Charity

I've been on the Catholic Answers forums since 2004. This never ceases to amaze me. Why haven't I been banned? Well, I'm not there every day. I make occasional visits, usually involved with Reformation-related subjects. One thing I've tried to do at CA is abide by the rules. Maybe that's the reason I've yet to get the boot.

Sometimes this isn't easy. For instance, recently a Roman Catholic participant was demonizing Luther and the Reformation on the "Non-Catholic Religions"  forum. Rather than interacting with this person, I decided to use the "Report Post" alert feature to notify the moderators of these uncharitable comments being posted. I sent in alerts on two or three different posts. The response to these alerts was that I myself received an "infraction" for allegedly abusing the alert system, and the vilifying posts were allowed to stay. So, lesson learned: don't use the "Report Post" alert feature on the Catholic Answers Non-Christian Religions forum.

Now, I don't get the logic of this, since Catholic Answers provides this link as well as these general  guidelines:

 "Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost." 

 "Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching." 

"Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited."
"Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory (e.g., Nazi or neocon) unless they have embraced that title. In which case, you may qualify them with the term as long as you preface it with the word "avowed."

Posters are asked to use their best judgement when posting articles using such terms. Do not abbreviate terms." What to look for in your post before you press submit: Is the post civil and charitable? Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them? And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 

 Guidelines for posting on religious discussions
 Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone's faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., "the pope is the anti-Christ" or "Rome is the Whore of Babylon" or "Muslims are terrorists"), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

I guess I shouldn't expect these rules apply to any comments Roman Catholics make about that great destroyer, Martin Luther or the Reformation in general. Ironically, in the same discussion a Lutheran was banned for making one unflattering comment about Roman Catholicism (if he made other less-than-charitable comments about Rome, I certainly didn't see them). I pointed out this odd double standard in a post, and it was deleted by a moderator. So, let's say with this particular situation, the Catholic Answers moderators have some sort of set of "other" rules that trump the posted rules. Well, it's their website, so they can do what they want.

Now here's a situation in which they moderated more successfully. If there's one person Roman Catholics disdain as much as Luther, it's Dr. James White. Recently a Methodist on the forum stated,

"James White has always seemed to me to be a peculiarly angry and unhappy man, who has been turned into a kind of Scrooge-like figure by cherishing his dislike of Catholics, & using it as whip to try to beat you all up."

Now, given the guidelines posted above, this comment goes over the line, doesn't it? So, I responded:

Today, 8:08 am

TertiumQuid Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 700 Religion: Reformed

Re: Praying to Dead Folks Quote: Originally Posted by Zooey James White has always seemed to me to be a peculiarly angry & unhappy man, who has been turned into a kind of Scrooge-like figure by cherishing his dislike of Catholics, & using it as whip to try to beat you all up.. I found these insightful comments about charity on the "Rules of the Road" forum: There is an expectation here at CAF that we all should behave with civility. In practice this means striving to deliver our comments here with as much charity as we can muster. Some Catholics who are going through a renewal of their faith can take on a somewhat strident tone. Having re-discovered the truth of their faith, they then proceed to jump on a soapbox and start proclaiming the truth as they see it. Fellow Catholics, priests, bishops, even the pope, are subject to "correction." Perhaps they do not realize that this behavior often comes across to others as trying to use doctrine as a weapon. Here are some quotations from Church leaders to consider closely: Quote: "Win an argument and lose a soul." -- Bishop Fulton Sheen "Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like 'a clanging cymbal.'" -- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Homily "Preach the gospel at all times, and, when necessary, use words." -- St. Francis (attributed) "You know well enough that our Lord does not look so much at the greatness of our actions, nor even at their difficulty, but at the love with which we do them." -- St. Therese of Lisieux "Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing.... Love does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil.... Love bears all things ... endures all things. So faith, hope, charity abide, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." -- St. Paul (1 Cor. 13:2, 5, 7, 14) "Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." -- St. Peter (1 Pet. 3:15; RSV-CE) Some members have left the Catholic Answers Forums because CAF management would not allow them to behave rudely. There are many venues on the Internet where one may behave as uncharitably as one desires. This is not one of them. It should also be noted that Catholics are NOT given preference because of their religious affiliation. In fact, Catholics are often held to a higher standard. As our Lord cautioned, "To whom much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48). Here at CAF, we believe that the truth will take care of itself. Our job is to reveal it as charitably as we can. Finally, the Moderators are prepared to help members remain within the boundaries of charity. But that only works if each of us is willing to co-operate. Please accept moderator guidance graciously and with the Christian gentleness St. Peter spoke of, even if you feel you have been wronged. (And don't forget that if you do feel that your case needs to be reviewed, you are free to appeal Mod actions to the Admin staff at forumadmin@catholic.com.) But please keep in mind that making continual complaints about a perceived slight or injustice is counterproductive. The Mods only have so much time to devote to CAF. Rather, offer it up. Others will benefit spiritually from your pain. It's the Catholic thing to do.

Now, here was a response back from a different participant: "Frankly, I am baffled as to why you posted this. Was something offensive? Then perhaps you should take it to the mods. If not mod-worthy, what are you responding to?" Now, given my previous infractions for contacting a moderator, I decided to respond back:

Today, 9:58 pm

TertiumQuid Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 700 Religion: Reformed

Re: Praying to Dead Folks Quote: Originally Posted by Tomyris Frankly, I am baffled as to why you posted this. Was something offensive? Then perhaps you should take it to the mods. If not mod-worthy, what are you responding to? Hello Tomyris, I'm actually baffled as to why you're baffled. Do you think this comment is in any way, charitable?: Quote: "James White has always seemed to me to be a peculiarly angry & unhappy man, who has been turned into a kind of Scrooge-like figure by cherishing his dislike of Catholics, & using it as whip to try to beat you all up.." This seems to me to go beyond the bounds of charity as expressed in this Catholic Answers post. JS

To which another participant posted:

Dee S Regular Member Prayer Warrior Book Club Member Join Date: September 28, 2011 Posts: 2,679 Religion: Catholic

Re: Praying to Dead Folks Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid Hello Tomyris, I'm actually baffled as to why you're baffled. Do you think this comment is in any way, charitable?: "James White has always seemed to me to be a peculiarly angry & unhappy man, who has been turned into a kind of Scrooge-like figure by cherishing his dislike of Catholics, & using it as whip to try to beat you all up.." This seems to me to go beyond the bounds of charity as expressed in this Catholic Answers post. JS That comment does not strike me as uncharitable. Descriptive..yes, informative...yes. I'd never heard of James White before this, but having taken a look, I would say that the poster was "charitable" in their definition - rather than the opposite! He comes across as very anti-Catholic and abuses us, our beliefs and doctrines with no pretence of charity -

...And my response:

TertiumQuid Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 701 Religion: Reformed

Re: Praying to Dead Folks Quote: Originally Posted by Dee S That comment does not strike me as uncharitable. Descriptive..yes, informative...yes. I'd never heard of James White before this, but having taken a look, I would say that the poster was "charitable" in their definition - rather than the opposite! He comes across as very anti-Catholic and abuses us, our beliefs and doctrines with no pretence of charity - Interesting! Someone can post that a person they've probably never met is angry, unhappy, and Scrooge-like, who "whips" and "beats up" people, and that, according to you is charitable? Very interesting. JS

...and then...in response...

Today, 12:59 pm

Dee S  Regular Member Prayer Warrior Book Club Member Join Date: September 28, 2011 Posts: 2,688 Religion: Catholic

Re: Praying to Dead Folks Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  Interesting! Someone can post that a person they've probably never met is angry, unhappy, and Scrooge-like, who "whips" and "beats up" people, and that, according to you is charitable? Very interesting. JS What's really interesting here is that James White has a well earned reputation for being anti-Catholic, and an angry, rude person who does beat up on people, especially women...read what Peter Lumpkins has to report: Debate Expert: "James White Driven by Emotion Rather than Reason" by Peter Lumpkins  Peter, Thank you for posting my comment. I will write a longer reply to your questions about Dr. Whites "ad hominem" arguments against you when not using my iPhone. But for the record, his attempts to discern your motives is bad argumentation and lacks objective support. I also think labeling you Alexander the Coppersmith wassimply wrong. And because I believe James is intellectually honest and responsible before God for every idle word, he will eventually agree that many of his chariactures[sic] of you and others are driven by emotion rather than reason. More on the other thread, DrV (//link emphasis added) "James White & God's Love (or lack thereof) for All People" by Peter Lumpkins » "On a recent comment thread at SBC Tomorrow, an unusual number of comments were logged concerning James White's disrespectful comments toward women. I took the time to listen to the broadcast in question. I now understand precisely why one Christian lady took extreme offense at White's remarks>>> "James White and his trusty sidekick, Rich Pierce, need to publicly apologize for these offensive remarks toward not only Mormon women, but ethnic women." Brigham Young Had Ugly Wives (the topic for this broadcast)- "No one would debate me on that...we have had some enjoyment over the years looking at the pictures of Bringham Young's wives...(lots of sniggering)..you're being mean, people say but....I would be a heretic too if i'd been married to 94 of them ...got to give that man some leeway..." He then asks caller (Shaun) in to the radio show "..ever read BY's collected sermons... have you ever seen pictures of BY's wives...look it up on google..in the Mormon Encyclopedia...scan the picture to a jpg...evidence that the mans' a ...? (lots of laughter throughout) "Russian women look like Russian men...Russian women are a lot up on (his wives)..." How's thatfor a start... __________________ Deus caritas est

.

..to which I responded...

Today, 3:59 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 702 Religion: Reformed

Re: Praying to Dead Folks Quote: Originally Posted by Dee S  What's really interesting here is that James White has a well earned reputation for being anti-Catholic, Having arguments against Roman Catholicism means that one should refer to Dr. White as "angry, unhappy, and Scrooge-like, who "whips" and "beats up" people"? Once again, I refer you to this Catholic Answers post. Quote: Originally Posted by Dee S  and an angry, rude person I've known Dr. White over 10 years, and this is simply not true. Even if it were, it still violates the sentiment expressed in this Catholic Answers post. Quote: Originally Posted by Dee S  who does beat up on people, If by "beat up people", you mean being able to cogently argue against that which one opposes, then sure. However, saying "beat up people" is not the sort of ideal in dialog I get from this Catholic Answers post. Quote: Originally Posted by Dee S  especially women...read what Peter Lumpkins has to report: I'm not sure if you are aware of the dialog between Peter and Dr. White, but there are two sides to every story, and charity would say that one should learn both sides before agreeing a particular person is "angry, unhappy, and Scrooge-like, who "whips" and "beats up" people." Dr. White does not "beat up women". Lumpkins took what was meant to be humorous, and used the ol' PC speech argument. I wonder if Mr. Lumpkins has any problem with the sentiment in these Bible verses, "16Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17Leah had weak eyes, but Rachel had a lovely figure and was beautiful." Quote: Originally Posted by Dee S  How's thatfor a start... Quite frankly, it really saddens me. It doesn't at all seem to reflect the standards put forth in this Catholic Answers post. JS

So, how did this wind up? All of my comments were deleted, as well as the other comments supporting the anti-James White comment. Now, I think that's good moderation. Everyone's comment got dumped. Now, here's where the Catholic Answers Moderators dropped the ball. They still allow this comment to be posted:

"James White has always seemed to me to be a peculiarly angry and unhappy man, who has been turned into a kind of Scrooge-like figure by cherishing his dislike of Catholics, & using it as whip to try to beat you all up."

Tim Staples, Luther, and "Error Begets Error," a Review

I was sent a link over to a recent Catholic Answers article by Tim Staples: Error Begets Error. The "errors" Mr. Staples has in mind are Luther's understanding of justification without the contribution of human works, Luther's error of claiming Roman Catholics deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice,  the error of denying free will,  the error of "simul justus et peccator," and finally the ultimate error of double predestination.


1. Justification
In regard to the first "error," Staples cites the Packer / Johnston translation of Luther's The Bondage of the Will, (he doesn't cite the page number, 294):

The assertion that justification is free to all that are justified leaves none to work, merit or prepare themselves… For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all.

Staples says Luther misinterpreted Paul because,

St. Paul was answering "Judaizers"—believers in Christ who were attempting to re-establish the law of the Old Covenant as necessary for salvation in the New. This was tantamount to forfeiting Christ, or rejecting the free gift, because it represented an attempt to be justified apart from Christ.

What Staples appears to mean by "the law of the Old Covenant" is the Mosaic law. The actual debate then Staples should have with Luther is over this very issue: what constitutes the Law, according to Paul? Had Staples backed up a few pages in The Bondage of the Will, he would have found Luther specifically addressing this issue. Luther states the moral law (the Decalogue) was indeed important to Paul as being commanded by God, as were the other aspects of the Mosaic law:

Ceremonial works were as much commanded and made obligatory in the old law as was the Decalogue; therefore, the latter had neither more nor less force than the former. Paul speaks to the Jews first, as he says in Rom. x (v. 16); so none need doubt that by 'the works of the law' all the works of the entire law are meant. Indeed, they could not be called 'the works of the law' if the law was abrogated and death-dealing, for an abrogated law is law no more, as Paul well knew. When he speaks of 'the works of the law', therefore, he is speaking, not of a law that is abrogated, but of a law that is in force and authoritative. Otherwise, how easily he might have said: 'The law itself is now abrogated!'—which would have been a plain, clear statement of the case. But let us appeal to Paul himself, his own best interpreter. In Gal. 3, he says: 'As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them' (v. 10). Paul is here urging the same point as in Romans, and in the same words; and you see that when he makes mention of the works of the law he speaks of all the laws that are written in the book of the law. Moreover—what is still more remarkable —Paul cites Moses as cursing those who continue not in the law, whereas he himself pronounces accursed those who are of the works of the law; thus adducing a passage with a different scope from his own expressed view, the former being negative and the latter affirmative. This he does, however, because the real position in the sight of God is that those who are most zealous in the works of the law are furthest from fulfilling the law; for they are without the Spirit, Who alone fulfills the law. Men may try to keep it in their own strength, but they can accomplish nothing. Thus, both statements are true—that of Moses, that they are accursed who 'continue not', and that of Paul, that they are accursed who 'are of the works of the law'. Both speakers require that men should have the Spirit, without Whom works of law, however many are done, do not justify, as Paul says; so that men do not continue in all things that are written, as Moses says. In a word: Paul fully confirms what I say by his division. He divides workers at the law into two classes, those who work after the Spirit and those who work after the flesh, leaving no middle state. He says: 'By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.' What is this, but to say that when men work at the law without the Spirit, being themselves flesh, that is, ungodly and ignorant of God, their works profit them nothing? In Gal. 3, he makes use of the same division when he says: 'Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?' (v. 2). Again, in Rom. 3 he says: 'But now the righteousness of God has been revealed without the law'; and again: 'We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law' (VV. 21, 28). From all these passages it is clear and plain that in Paul the Spirit is set in opposition to the works of the law, as He is to all other things that are not spiritual, and to all the powers and qualities of the flesh. So it is certain that Paul's view here accords with Christ's teaching in John 3 (v. 6), that everything which is not of the Spirit is flesh, however specious, holy and excellent it may be, even the most - glorious works of God's law, by whatever powers wrought. For the Spirit of Christ is needed, and without Him all is nothing but a matter for condemnation. Let it be settled, then, that Paul by 'the works of the law' means, not ceremonial works, but all the works of all the law. Then it will also be settled that all works of law that are wrought without the Spirit are condemned. But the power of 'free-will' (which is the matter in dispute), though no doubt the most excellent thing in man, is without the Spirit. That he is 'of the works of the law' is the finest thing that can be said of a man. But Paul does not say, 'who are of sins, and of ungodliness, contrary to the law'; he says, 'who are of the works of the law'—. that is, the best devotees of the law, who, over and above the power of 'free-will', are also aided—that is, instructed and encouraged—by the law itself. If, now, 'free-will,' when aided by the law, and occupied in the law with all its powers, profits nothing and fails to justify, but is left in ungodliness in the flesh, what must we think it could do on its own, without the law? 'By the law is the knowledge of sin,' says Paul (Rom. 3.20). Here he shows how much and how far the law profits, teaching that 'free-will' is of itself so blind that it does not even know what sin is, but needs the law to teach it! And what can a man essay to do in order to take away sin, when he does not know what sin is? Surely this: mistake what is sin for what is not sin, and what is not sin for what is sin! Experience informs us clearly enough how the world, in the persons of those whom it accounts its best and most zealous devotees of righteousness and godliness, hates and hounds down the righteousness of God preached in the gospel, and brands it heresy, error, and other opprobrious names, while flaunting and hawking its own works and devices (which are really sin and error) as righteousness and wisdom. By these words, therefore, Paul stops the mouth of 'free-will', teaching tat by the law it is shown sin, as being ignorant of its sin; so far is he from allowing it any power to make endeavors towards good. (pp. 285-287)

2. The Sufficiency of Christ's Work 
In  regard to the second "error" Staples cites an undocumented sermon from Luther:

[Catholics] know very well how to say of him: I believe in God the Father, and in his only begotten Son. But it is only upon the tongue, like the foam on the water; it does not enter the heart. Figuratively a big tumor still remains there in the heart; that is, they cling somewhat to their own deeds and think they must do works in order to be saved—that Christ's person and merit are not sufficient. . . . They say, Christ has truly died for us, but in a way that we, also, must accomplish something by our deeds. Notice how deeply wickedness and unbelief are rooted in the heart.

The sermon being cited is Luther's Sunday After Christ's Ascension (1522). The error this is supposed to represent is that Luther "claimed any belief that man must actively cooperate in salvation at all to be equivalent to a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice."

In context, Luther is speaking about those who claim to "know" God broadly, not simply "Catholics" (a word that was added to Luther's quote by Mr. Staples). In fact, if one were to look at that which immediately precedes what Mr. Staples quotes, Luther refers to the Turks and a little earlier mentions the pope, not "Catholics" generally, but I grant that Luther certainly has the "papists" of his day in mind as well.

Staples argues,

Saying man must 'accomplish something' in Christ does not deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice; it merely states, in agreement with St. John no less, that man must, among other things, 'walk in the light' of Christ in order for Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice to become efficacious in his life."

Notice what Luther immediately goes on to say from the same context:

But to know Christ in the other and true sense is to know that he died for me and transferred the load of my sin upon himself; to so know this that I realize that all my doings amount to nothing. To let go all that is mine, and value only this, that Christ is given to me as a present; his sufferings, his righteousness and all his virtues are at once mine. When I become conscious of this, I must in return love him; my affections must go out to such a being. After this I climb upon the Son higher, to the Father, and see that Christ is God, and that he placed himself in my death, in my sin, in my misery, and bestows upon me his grace. Then I know also his gracious will and the highest love of the Father, which no heart of itself can discover or experience. Thus I lay hold of God at the point where he is the tenderest, and think: Aye, that is God; that is God's will and pleasure, that Christ did this for me. And with this experience I perceive the high, inexpressible mercy and the love in him because of which he offered his beloved child for me in ignominy, shame and death. That friendly look and lovely sight then sustain me. Thus must God become known, only in Christ. Therefore, Christ himself says to his disciples: "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him." Mt 11, 27.

The issue in the actual debate between Luther and Romanism is that for Luther, one who is saved by faith alone goes on to live a life in gratitude to what Christ has done, but this life of gratitude is not a salvific contribution. As was stated of Luther's sermons long ago, "[Luther’s] leading thoughts were always faith and charity, justification and sanctification, giving to each its proper place and its due importance. He did not preach sanctification at the expense of justification, a sin which many sectarian preachers are guilty; but he did not fail to emphasize the necessity of the Christian life. His sermons were immensely practical, as all preaching, in order to serve its purpose should be” [Rev. John H.C. Fritz, “Luther as a Preacher,” found in W.H.T. Dau (editor), Four Hundred Years: Commemorative Essays on the Reformation of Dr. Martin Luther and its Blessed Results [St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917), 204].


3. Free Will
Mr. Staples then refers to another "error of Luther:

The errors continue in The Bondage of the Will when Luther takes the next logical step by declaring man’s will to be absolutely passive when it comes to salvation; and consequent to that, he expressly denies the truth of man’s free will. This again follows logically from the principle of "no works," meaning there is nothing we can do, leading to two-for-one errors.

He cites The Bondage of the Will (he doesn't cite the page number, 103-104):

So man’s will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills. . . . If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it.

Certainly Mr. Staples is correct that Luther denies "free will." As to whether it's a denial of "the truth of man’s free will" is more an example of Mr. Staples preaching to his own choir rather than a detailed argument against Luther's book (and, I realize the article by Staples was not meant to be a detailed refutation of Luther).


4. Simul justus et peccator
Mr. Staples then cites another error:

Luther’s famous notion of simul justus et peccator (“at the same time just and sinner”) is another error rooted in leaving man completely out of the equation when it comes to his own justification. It means, in effect, man's justification is accomplished extrinsic to him. God declares a man just via a divine, forensic declaration—a legal fiction—rather than the biblical notion of a real inward transformation that makes him truly and inwardly just (cf. II Cor. 5:17).

Once again this is another snippet of preaching to the choir rather than an interaction with any of Luther's argumentation, nor does Mr. Staples offer any particular Luther quote. What Mr. Staples should have done, to be fair to Luther, is to explain what Luther actually believed the role of works were in the life of a Christian.


5. Predestination
Mr Staples then goes on to state what he believes was Luther's worst error:

There are many other errors we could add to this litany of Lutheran misstandings, but what I would argue to be Luther’s most egregious errors came as a direct consequence of his denial of free will. Think about it. If you deny free will, but you also teach that at least some people will end up in hell—and Luther did just that—then it necessarily follows that God does not will all to be saved. This is logical if you accept Luther's first principles. The problem is it runs contrary to plain biblical texts like I Tim. 2:4: “God wills all to be saved” (see also II Peter 3:9: I John 2:1-2), and Matthew 23:37, which records the words of our Lord himself.

Well, I'm Reformed, so I don't particularly have a problem with Luther if his view was "God does not will all to be saved." However, as far as I've been able to understand Luther, he did not limit the extent of the atonement. He rather argued Christ died for "all", as in, every single person.  Mr Staples then provides actual argumentation from Luther on this issue from The Bondage of the Will (he doesn't cite the page number, p. 176),

Here, God Incarnate (sic) says: “I would and thou wouldst not.” God Incarnate (sic), I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit he offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God’s secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing, and offering. . . . It belongs to the same God incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish.

Mr. Staples interprets Luther as follows:

So what is Luther’s response to Jesus’ obvious willing all to be saved? Certainly, he would acquiesce to the Master and acknowledge God's universal salvific will, would he not? After all, Jesus Christ is, in one sense, the will of God manifest in the flesh. Unfortunately not. Luther claimed Christ's human knowledge to be lacking when it came to understanding "God's secret will of Majesty," which led our Lord's human will to find itself in opposition to the divine will. Poor Jesus. If he only knew what Luther knew.

Exactly where is Luther saying this about Christ's human knowledge? Luther certainly isn't saying this in the quote cited by Mr. Staples. What's interesting is this very section is quoted in Packer's introduction along with an explanation of Luther's Deus absconditus (pp. 55-57), and that appears to be the actual text Mr. Staples is citing (based on the fact that both Mr. Staples and Packer leave out the same sentences). Luther describes God in his bare majesty as the hidden God (deus absconditus). This God has absolute control over everything. Of the agenda of the hidden God, a finite creature can know nothing. He is the God who enforces his “hidden and awful will” which includes the predestinating punishment for sinners. Of this hidden will, no creature is to speculate on or inquire. Rather, as Packer explains, "...we must listen to, and deal with, God as He speaks to us in Christ." Packer, as far I could see from the immediate context, does not say anything about Luther's solution being to limit the knowledge of Christ. In fact, I would refer Mr. Staples to one of the standard works on Luther's theology for his review.

Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 in the Würzburg Glosses, 8th Century

.... Very interesting: Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 in the Würzburg Glosses, from an Irish theologian in the 8th Century:

"23For all have sinned and do need the glory of God. 24Being justified freely by his grace [that is, by faith alone, i.e. the faith of belief in Jesus Christ], through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [that is, it is He that has redeemed and it is He also that is the ransom, i.e. by the blood] 25Whom God had proposed to be a propitiation [that is, it has been set forth in the mysteries of the Godhead, to make atonement for those who believe his liberation would be in the blood], through faith in his blood, [that is, through the faith of every one who believes in his salvation through His blood] to the showing of his justice, for the remission of former sins."

Luther "hired a bodyguard to prevent him from physically hurting anyone during very painful bouts of tinnitus"?

The Catholic Answers forums are a never-ending source of Luther / Reformation facts. Here's an interesting tidbit posted recently. The good news for the Catholic Answers folks is that the person who posted this doesn't claim to be Roman Catholic:

Mar 13, '13, 1:45 pm

Telestia  Junior Member Join Date: October 7, 2011 Posts: 204 Religion: Evangelical

Re: "Martin Luther just knew that Catholics had too many rules." Martin Luther in 1529 was not the same Martin Luther of 1519 and earlier. Among Martin Luther's many physical ailments was the torment of severe tinnitus. In his own words he wrote: "When I try to work, my head becomes filled with all sorts of whizzing, buzzing, thundering noises.". The pain became so severe that he hired a body guard to prevent him from physically hurting anyone during very painful bouts of tinnitus. Earlier in his life, Martin Luther defended the Jews as God's people whom the LORD will redeem in time. But by 1529, he wrote awful things about the Jews of his day. Later in his life Luther also wrote books that were simply awful, He was driven mad by his very severe case of Tinnitus, accompanied by other health issues. His father and two of his brothers also suffered from tinnitus.

I've certainly come across Luther's health problems, including his hearing difficulties, but never have I come across any of his health issues prompting him to hire a bodyguard "to prevent him from physically hurting anyone during very painful bouts of tinnitus." One never knows though. Simply because I don't recall it doesn't mean it doesn't have some sort of vague historical facts backing it up. Of course I asked for these facts, and here was the response:

Mar 14, '13, 12:46 pm

Telestia  Junior Member Join Date: October 7, 2011 Posts: 204 Religion: Evangelical

Re: "Martin Luther just knew that Catholics had too many rules." Yes it is true, 'though the actual description' was not body Guard, he hired a strong man or two late in his life as his rapidly deteriorating mind led to random violent impulsive actions, the hired person would subdue him before he hurt someone or his-self. It must have been over a decade i had that info in my hands, say I can not provide it at this time. If I come across it I will let you know. Here is additional info on Martin Luther. As early as 1516, Luther wrote, "...Many people are proud with marvelous stupidity when they call the Jews dogs, evildoers, or whatever they like, while they too, and equally, do not realize who or what they are in the sight of God". In 1523, Luther advised kindness toward the Jews in That Jesus Christ was born a Jew. Historian Gritsch argues that Luther’s anti-Semitism was an integral part of his life and work, in “Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism” (Eerdmans). As a Christian theologian, Gritsch argues that Luther’s anti-Semitism was basically discordant with the core of his theology – particularly in the context of Paul’s views on the relationship between Christians and Jews. Therefore, Gritsch concludes, Luther’s attitude toward Jews was, as he puts it, “against his better judgment.” As early as 1516, Luther wrote, “… Many people are proud with marvelous stupidity when they call Jews dogs, evildoers, or whatever they like, while they too, and equally, do not realize who or what they are in the sight of God.” In 1523, Luther advised kindness toward the Jews in that Jesus Christ was born a Jew. In contrast, this kindness toward the Jews was certainly not the common view of European Christians toward the Jews in 1516, 1523, Jews were being persecuted throughout Christendom at this time. The 16th century saw many persecutions of Jews, and Jews forcefully packed into small ghettos - "You have no right to live amongst us" was the attitude (except for France). The Iberian Peninsula saw great persecution of Jews, and in Rome they were forced into a very overcrowded Ghetto. So what happened that Martin Luther’s genuine kindness and support toward Jewish people dissipated into outright hatred and contempt of the Jews? The answer is not the fault of the Jews, it was Martin Luther whom changed. Luther became mentally ill in the late 1520’s, and the symptoms increased his mental illness as the years continued downhill as the years went by. Luther had been suffering from ill health for years, including Meniere’s Disease, severe Tinnitus, vertigo, fainting, and a cataract in one eye. From 1531 to 1546, his health deteriorated rapidly. And the knowledge of diseases affecting the mind in those days was zilch. Sadly, Martin Luther’s anti-Semitic teachings contributed significantly to future persecution of Jews, and particularly during Hitler’s Germany, as Hitler used Luther's words spoken when Luther's mind detiorated to a great degree. This does not nullify Martin Luther’s teachings prior to 1526, when he was healthy enough and still in his right mind. Though all teachings by us mortals are debatable as to their meaning and the fruit they bear: good or bad, or nuetral. Last edited by Telestia; Mar 14, '13 at 1:01 pm.

Well, I appreciated that this person attempted a response. The actual meat of the response is in the first paragraph: "It must have been over a decade i had that info in my hands, say I can not provide it at this time. If I come across it I will let you know."

I do recall something to the effect that Luther was worried at one point of assassination by the Jews (see my detailed paper on Luther and the Jews, particularly VII. 1537: The Josel Of Rosheim Controversy. I don't recall if he had body guards due to these worries. I'd have to check some sources.  The notion though being put forth: a violent man with a "rapidly deteriorating mind" certainly would be quite a popular fact by those wishing to discredit Luther. But frankly, I don't recall ever hearing it, and I'm very skeptical and doubt any meaningful historical documentation will ever be provided.

Many do speculate Luther had ear problems- Mark U. Edwards says maybe Meiniere's Syndrome- caused by a severe middle ear infection, and it's possible Luther had a severe ear infection in 1541. But the assertions being put forth seem a bit far-fetched to me (and, I'm not referring to tinnitus).

Note that in the response, Luther's later Jewish writings are blamed on mental illness: "So what happened that Martin Luther’s genuine kindness and support toward Jewish people dissipated into outright hatred and contempt of the Jews? The answer is not the fault of the Jews, it was Martin Luther whom changed. Luther became mentally ill in the late 1520’s, and the symptoms increased his mental illness as the years continued downhill as the years went by." That again is a charge I've not come across before, that some sort of mental illness in the 1520's bloomed into a full hatred of the Jews.  Note as well Luther's writings are said to be good before 1526 but bad after:"This does not nullify Martin Luther’s teachings prior to 1526, when he was healthy enough and still in his right mind. Though all teachings by us mortals are debatable as to their meaning and the fruit they bear: good or bad, or nuetral." Actually, I think many of Luther's writings after 1526 are better than those previous to 1526.

Once again  I responded and challenged the theory Luther become mentally ill: "If he did and you have something to prove this, produce your source so I can look at the documentation." Note that I had previously mentioned Meiniere's Syndrome.  Here was the response:

#353       Mar 14, '13, 7:08 pm

Telestia  Junior Member Join Date: October 7, 2011 Posts: 204 Religion: Evangelical

Re: "Martin Luther just knew that Catholics had too many rules." T.Q. wrote: No he didn't become mentally ill, if he did and you have something to prove this, produce your source so I can look at the documentation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2529669 The information how Martin Luther suffered terribly from a extreme cases of meniere's disease and tinitus. He suffered many other ailments too. Martin Luther's diseases are well documented, because he used to discuss them freely in his letters. There is also a wealth of evidence through reports by his friends. Most of his diseases were common and well known to the contemporary physicians, who accordingly interpreted them correctly: bladder stones, chronic constipation, hemorrhoids. Luther's death obviously was due to a coronary thrombosis. During the last 19 years of his life, in addition to these "natural diseases", Luther also suffered from recurring attacks of a peculiar symptomatology. Luther himself and his friends considered these seizures to be no "natural disease", but Satan punching his flesh, and he compared them to St. Paul's disease (2. Cor. 12). The first of these attacks occurred on July 6, 1527, when Luther was 43 years of age. It began with a roaring tinnitus in his left ear, which increased dramatically and seemed to occupy the left half of his head. Then a state of sickness and collapse followed, however, consciousness was retained throughout the whole period. After a night's rest all the symptoms had subsided, except the tinnitus, which, from that day on, continued for all the following years in varying intensity. Similar attacks with increase of the tinnitus and vertigo as the leading symptoms, seized Luther at irregular intervals and distressed him extremely. Former investigators of Luther's diseases interpreted these attacks as manifestations of a psychiatric disorder and a chronic inflammatory disease of the middle ear. The present detailed study reveals that it was a typical case of Menière's disease of the left ear manifesting itself more than 330 years before Menière's classical observation. Meniere's disease is defined as: "an aetiologically unclear illness, affecting mainly (in 70% of cases) one side of the cochleovestibular organ with the following characteristic symptoms: severe attacks of Vertigo (lasting between minutes and hours), beginning with fluctuating hearing loss, Tinnitus (mostly occurring in low frequences) and a feeling of pressure in the affected ear."

#354       Mar 14, '13, 7:09 pm

Telestia  Junior Member Join Date: October 7, 2011 Posts: 204 Religion: Evangelical

Re: "Martin Luther just knew that Catholics had too many rules." Part 2 in response to Tertium Quid Per your request that You wrote: "No he didn't become mentally ill, if he did and you have something to prove this, produce your source so I can look at the documentation." Meniere's disease is defined as: "an aetiologically unclear illness, affecting mainly (in 70% of cases) one side of the cochleovestibular organ with the following characteristic symptoms: severe attacks of Vertigo (lasting between minutes and hours), beginning with fluctuating hearing loss, Tinnitus (mostly occurring in low frequences) and a feeling of pressure in the affected ear." During the acute attack patients - often not knowing what is happening to them - also experience deep anxiety and fear of death, so that the first vertigo attack can be misjudged as a heart attack." "In addition, the differentiation between a meniere attack and the first occurrence of vestibular disorder can be difficult. After the recurrence of the attack, the ear, nose and throat medical specialist can usually make a clear diagnosis, when also taking into consideration the medical history and the neurotological findings. " During the acute attack, patients - often not knowing what is happening to them - also experience deep anxiety and fear of death, so that the first vertigo attack can be misjudged as a heart attack. In addition, the differentiation between a meniere attack and the first occurrence of vestibular disorder can be difficult. After the recurrence of the attack, the ear, nose and throat medical specialist can usually make a clear diagnosis, when also taking into consideration the medical history and the neurootological findings. Guidelinens along ADANO staging according to Jahnke (1994) Stage 1: Fluctuating hearing loss; this may recover to a normacoustic level after the Menière vertigo attack. Stage 2: Vertigo attacks and fluctuating hearing loss, that may improve spontaneously, but not to a normacoustic level. Stage 3: Severe hearing loss without fluctuation and persistent vertigo attacks. Stage 4: The inner ear has lost its function.  Subjectivity of the Patient Through the suddenness and severity of the vertigo attacks patients lose confidence in the stability - previously taken by them for granted - of their vestibular system. Not knowing what is happening to them during the first attack, they often feel helpless and deeply threatened. For patients diagnosed with Meniere`s disease there is a breakdown in their sense of security, which now proves to be vulnerable and threatened by the unpredictability of recurring attacks of vertigo. In 1861 Prosper Meniere himself vividly described the almost constant problems of a patient: "Without identifiable cause, a strong young man is suddenly struck down by symptoms of dizziness and nausea; inexpressible fear diminishes his strength; his face turns pale, becomes bathed in sweat and shows signs of an approaching loss of consciousness." At first the patient feels unsteady and dazed, then he falls to the ground and is unable to get up again. Lying on his back, he sees the room spinning around him, and the slightest perceived movement increases his sensation of dizziness and nausea. We can observe his pale face, signs of a possible fainting fit, his body bathed in cold sweat and altogether everything indicates a state of deep anxiety." In 1530 Martin Luther believed his state of illness, at that time not yet known as"Meniere-condition", to be the work of Satan: Luther took good notes on his symptoms of what physically was ailing him. Luther wrote: "I thought it was the Devil himself, doing everything within his power to make me suffer on this Earth ... nobody believes how much these fits of imbalance and the roaring and ringing in my ears torment me. I hardly dare to read for an hour, or to concentrate on any matter, because the loud ringing returns with force and I fall to the ground."  Many Physicians and historians noted that Martin Luther suffered from severe Meniere' diseases

And I responded as follows:

Mar 15, '13, 2:46 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 698 Religion: Reformed

Re: "Martin Luther just knew that Catholics had too many rules." Quote: Originally Posted by Telestia  T.Q. wrote: No he didn't become mentally ill, if he did and you have something to prove this, produce your source so I can look at the documentation.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2529669 Thanks for the URL. The abstract says the article it refers to argues Luther may have suffered from "a typical case of Menière's disease", not a mental disorder. Recall, I mentioned this disease yesterday. In other words, your source doesn't argue Luther had a mental disorder. Quote: Originally Posted by Telestia  The information how Martin Luther suffered terribly from a extreme cases of meniere's disease and tinitus. He suffered many other ailments too. None of which I disputed, including tinnitus. Quote: Originally Posted by Telestia  -Martin Luther's diseases are well documented, because he used to discuss them freely in his letters. There is also a wealth of evidence through reports by his friends. Most of his diseases were common and well known to the contemporary physicians, who accordingly interpreted them correctly: bladder stones, chronic constipation, hemorrhoids. Luther's death obviously was due to a coronary thrombosis. .... and I never disputed that, nor did I request this information from you. Quote: Originally Posted by Telestia  During the last 19 years of his life, in addition to these "natural diseases", Luther also suffered from recurring attacks of a peculiar symptomatology. Luther himself and his friends considered these seizures to be no "natural disease", but Satan punching his flesh, and he compared them to St. Paul's disease (2. Cor. 12). This appears to be a cut-and-paste from the URl you provided. Quote: Originally Posted by Telestia  The first of these attacks occurred on July 6, 1527, when Luther was 43 years of age. It began with a roaring tinnitus in his left ear, which increased dramatically and seemed to occupy the left half of his head. Then a state of sickness and collapse followed, however, consciousness was retained throughout the whole period. After a night's rest all the symptoms had subsided, except the tinnitus, which, from that day on, continued for all the following years in varying intensity. This also appears to be a cut-and-paste from the URl you provided. Quote: Originally Posted by Telestia  Similar attacks with increase of the tinnitus and vertigo as the leading symptoms, seized Luther at irregular intervals and distressed him extremely. Former investigators of Luther's diseases interpreted these attacks as manifestations of a psychiatric disorder and a chronic inflammatory disease of the middle ear. The present detailed study reveals that it was a typical case of Menière's disease of the left ear manifesting itself more than 330 years before Menière's classical observation. And this also appears to be a cut-and-paste from the URl you provided. Note the final sentence: "The present detailed study reveals that it was a typical case of Menière's disease of the left ear manifesting itself more than 330 years before Menière's classical observation." Quote: Originally Posted by Telestia  Meniere's disease is defined as: "an aetiologically unclear illness, affecting mainly (in 70% of cases) one side of the cochleovestibular organ with the following characteristic symptoms: severe attacks of Vertigo (lasting between minutes and hours), beginning with fluctuating hearing loss, Tinnitus (mostly occurring in low frequences) and a feeling of pressure in the affected ear."] This is not information I requested or dispute, as I mentioned Meniere's disease yesterday. Now, scroll thorugh everything you've posted, and you'll notice that you haven't actually documented anything I've asked for. This is what I would like to see credible documentation for. I've placed in bold lettering, the things that need documentation: Quote: Originally Posted by Telestia The pain became so severe that he hired a body guard to prevent him from physically hurting anyone during very painful bouts of tinnitus...He was driven mad by his very severe case of Tinnitus, Quote: Originally Posted by Telestia Yes it is true, 'though the actual description' was not body Guard, he hired a strong man or two late in his life as his rapidly deteriorating mind led to random violent impulsive actions, the hired person would subdue him before he hurt someone or his-self. It must have been over a decade i had that info in my hands, say I can not provide it at this time. Quote: Originally Posted by Telestia So what happened that Martin Luther’s genuine kindness and support toward Jewish people dissipated into outright hatred and contempt of the Jews? The answer is not the fault of the Jews, it was Martin Luther whom changed. Luther became mentally ill in the late 1520’s, and the symptoms increased his mental illness as the years continued downhill as the years went by. JS

This was the first part of my response. I posted the second part a while later, and within about five minutes of being posted, it was yanked off the forum, and this message was in it's place:

Mar 16, '13, 8:24 am

Eric Hilbert  Moderator Join Date: September 30, 2009 Location: Non-Catholic Religions Posts: 4,610 Religion: Catholic

Re: "Martin Luther just knew that Catholics had too many rules." Okay, enough with the armchair shrinks and psychological evaluations of Martin Luther. Start a new thread for that if you wish. Return to the topic of the OP. __________________ Forum Rules and guidelines

There are few odd things about my post being yanked. First, I wasn't the person being an armchair shrink giving psychological evaluations of Luther. Second, the topic was relevant as it's common for people to explain away Luther's theology by appealing to his psychological state. In fact there were others in this discussion who were doing just that. One need only look at the title of the discussion: "Martin Luther just knew that Catholics had too many rules." Third, in regard to staying on topic, a number of Roman Catholics in this discussion veered way off topic to discussing the canon of Scripture (that's right, James Swan versus everyone on the canon). That of course, according to a private message from Mr. Hilbert, was not off topic.

I thought I had saved a copy of my deleted post, but I can't find it.  I basically pointed out the majority of the information given was a cut-and-paste from this webpage. I specifically commented on the following:

"In 1530 Martin Luther believed his state of illness, at that time not yet known as"Meniere-condition", to be the work of Satan: Luther took good notes on his symptoms of what physically was ailing him. Luther wrote: "I thought it was the Devil himself, doing everything within his power to make me suffer on this Earth ... nobody believes how much these fits of imbalance and the roaring and ringing in my ears torment me. I hardly dare to read for an hour, or to concentrate on any matter, because the loud ringing returns with force and I fall to the ground." Many Physicians and historians noted that Martin Luther suffered from severe Meniere' diseases."

This is basically a cut-and-paste with some added comments. "Luther took good notes on his symptoms of what physically was ailing him" was added, and, the quote from Luther, well, I couldn't find the context.   The quote was probably originally in German, and then translated into English for the web page being cut-and-pasted.

After my post was taken down, I left this discussion. This wasn't the only post of mine deleted from this discussion. I had another taken down that pointed out Roman Catholics are basically allowed to say whatever they want about Luther and the Reformation, while non-Roman Catholics are shut down quickly if they say anything remotely negative against the Roman church.  The double standards of Mr. Hilbert's moderation in both these instances speaks to the fact that Catholic Answers is not interested in an open or fair dialog.