The Fans speak Out

Why do I post on the Internet? To make friends and influence people!

Stephen Dalton  Beggars all • a day ago

I'm a former Lutheran, and I find your whine, "Stephen, that's not fair" to be a real knee-slapper. Your little group of bigots have attacked the anyone who has disagreed with you with venomous hatred, especially, the Catholic Church. As for your defense of Luther being taken out of context, every cult or sect always makes the same claim when their fearless leader is attacked. I'm also a former cult member, (Worldwide Church of God) so I'm very familiar with that tactic. So take your lies somewhere else, because the vast majority of us here on shoebat.com won't buy 'em.

Stephen Dalton  Beggars all • 21 hours ago

I'm not interested in engaging you at all., either on a personal level or on Luther's quotes. It's a waste of time dealing with people who's minds are bent by the teachings of a bonafide mental case (Luther) or an outright psychopath (Calvin). I learned that lesson in the Armstrong cult after only eight years in it, you and your buddies have been in your Calvinist straight jacket all your lives, and haven't learned your lesson yet. Pity.

Stephen Dalton  Beggars all • 2 days ago
Beggars All is a notorious Anti-Catholic, Calvinist site. Unless you want to waste an an hour you will never get back, don't go there.

YOU DON'T SPEAK GERMAN!?!?!? And all your claptrap about "originals sources"! I always assumed you were reading Luther in the original German and now you say you don't speak German. James Swan, you are a blowhard. How many times on your blog have you discounted Catholics because, unlike yourself, they weren't accessing the original sources? You phony-Moderated blog comment

ha! you are a real don quixote. single handedly, you are going to change the world's perception the sicko who caused the rupture in the Body of Christ? Primary sources? Unless people read the german originals, they are not qualified to weigh in on Luther? Good luck on you attempt at white washing- Moderated blog comment

May I politely suggest that you stop your unprovoked attacks.If you aren't driven to respond by some demonic activity, then you could stop replying as well!(CARM boards)

I am not the word of God, but my gospel is to seek a personal relationship with Jesus and to be guided by the Holy Spirit AND turn to them for all knowledge of good and evil. This is offensive to you and you would like to kill that idea, as this would mean that you are no longer in charge of your great collection of Christianese titbits. You would no longer be in charge of your own life and would call Jesus your Lord and Saviour. How repugnant is that to those who are perishing! I am looking forward to a continued attack. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to make your position clearer. Do you want me to describe the level of faith needed to uphold your position? (CARM boards)

The reason that you reject everything I post is because I am a stench to those who are perishing. (CARM boards)

I know that you would rather attack me and keep your bookish religion, than preach the gospel. (CARM boards)

Are you still defending Lutheran, but not adhering to their theology? Once you are less two-faced your credibility rating would go from zero to one out of ten. (CARM boards)

You hate me! Remember, I am the aroma of death to those who are perishing (CARM boards)

You have already ridiculed the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit in the temples of the Holy Spirit: the KINGDOM WITHIN. There is a clash of cultures here; your carnal hobby of collecting Christian titbits versus the gospel being preached.That should be every challenging for you. Your response of shooting the messenger by quoting verses from your carnal arsenal isn't quite the faith response which will lead you to Christ. (CARM boards)

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.

Fan Club Testimonials from Catholic Answers

Update: As I suspected, this thread over on Catholic Answers got shut down. What's interesting is that they deleted a number of posts (including mine) and allowed the discussion to end with "Rosinante" getting the last word. It's fascinating that they would allow someone unrestrained mocking, and then allow them to get the last word. As my friend Algo taught me, with Catholic Answers, one needs to always make backup copies.

Update (12/29/12): More editing has occurred over on the Catholic Answers discussion from which the posts below were taken. It appears all the posts below are now deleted. The discussion now ends with a moderator stating, "Return and stay on the topic...". The discussion is still locked and closed. Having myself been a large discussion board moderator in the past, that's a fair move. I'm not sure if anything I posted here had anything to do with it (I doubt Catholic Answers cares what I post), so whatever their reasons, they did the right thing.

*****************************

One of the folks on Catholic Answers showed their appreciation for my blog entry, Did Luther Regret the Reformation? after it was recommended:

Yesterday, 11:55 am

Rosinante  New Member Join Date: July 21, 2010 Posts: 77 Religion: Catholic

Re: Question to our 'seperated brethren' (protestants), who deny Mary, Theotokos Quote: Originally Posted by JonNC  And the same to you. Be Blessed! May I suggest the following: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...formation.html Jon That's just patently embarrasing. First, you pretend to be ignorant of any such claims ("...I doubt you'll be able to [produce] any credible sources")... ...then you refer me to "Yeah, but, but, but.DOT COM", a cite virtually acknowledging a multitude of such quotes from Marty (then lamely trying to spin them, or explain them away). Thanks anyway for the link--was good for a few laughs... But next time, may I kindly suggest owning that you are aware of Marty's various back peddles, but simply have a your own spin on them, to wihch you subscribe (or I'm sure you'd rather phrase it as you disagree with my characterizations thereof, or conclusions drawn therefrom....). Okham's razoor however, suggests rather compellingly, that Marty meant what he said--not what protestants wished he had meant by what he actaully said. VIVAT JESUS!

Today, 9:36 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 626 Religion: Reformed

Re: Question to our 'seperated brethren' (protestants), who deny Mary, Theotokos Quote: Originally Posted by Rosinante  That's just patently embarrasing. First, you pretend to be ignorant of any such claims ("...I doubt you'll be able to [produce] any credible sources")... ...then you refer me to "Yeah, but, but, but.DOT COM", a cite virtually acknowledging a multitude of such quotes from Marty (then lamely trying to spin them, or explain them away). Thanks anyway for the link--was good for a few laughs... But next time, may I kindly suggest owning that you are aware of Marty's various back peddles, but simply have a your own spin on them, to wihch you subscribe (or I'm sure you'd rather phrase it as you disagree with my characterizations thereof, or conclusions drawn therefrom....). Okham's razoor however, suggests rather compellingly, that Marty meant what he said--not what protestants wished he had meant by what he actaully said. VIVAT JESUS! I'm the unembarrassed author of "Yeah, but, but, but.DOT COM" whom you say "lamely" spins and explains away multitudes of Luther quotes in order to provoke laughs. I suggest before you make such remarks on a public forum, you actually provide cogent examples to prove your opinion. Saying something and proving something are two very different things. JS

Update:

Today, 10:07 am

Rosinante  New Member Join Date: July 21, 2010 Posts: 81 Religion: Catholic

Re: Question to our 'seperated brethren' (protestants), who deny Mary, Theotokos Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  I'm the unembarrassed author of "Yeah, but, but, but.DOT COM" whom you say "lamely" spins and explains away multitudes of Luther quotes in order to provoke laughs. I suggest before you make such remarks on a public forum, you actually provide cogent examples to prove your opinion. Saying something and proving something are two very different things. JS First, I didn't suggest you did it to 'provoke laughs'--that's just the reaction your cite provoked in me; Second, the point is that Luther actually made many of these comments, and the poster to whom my post was directed, feigned ignorance about the statemets (like me, feigning ignorance about the inquisitions); Third, the mere existence of your cite, indicates the need to 'explain away' Luther's back peddling. VIVAT JESUS!

Today, 10:45 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 627 Religion: Reformed

Re: Question to our 'seperated brethren' (protestants), who deny Mary, Theotokos Quote: Originally Posted by Rosinante  First, I didn't suggest you did it to 'provoke laughs'--that's just the reaction your cite provoked in me; Second, the point is that Luther actually made many of these comments, and the poster to whom my post was directed, feigned ignorance about the statemets (like me, feigning ignorance about the inquisitions); Third, the mere existence of your cite, indicates the need to 'explain away' Luther's back peddling. VIVAT JESUS! Rather than quibble about justifying your feelings and your harsh comments towards my website, I'll once again point out the obvious: before you make such remarks on a public forum, you actually need to provide cogent examples to prove your opinion. Saying something and proving something are two very different things. Here's your chance to substantiate your comments. Give me one example from the link that was suggested to you by JonNC and prove what I wrote was an exercise in explaining away Luther's back-peddling. Remember, this is "Catholic Answers". Here's your chance to prove that your Catholic answer to someone like myself is meaningful and convincing, and a reason why the Roman Catholic worldview is true. Simply saying "the mere existence of your cite, indicates the need to 'explain away' Luther's back peddling" is neither meaningful or convincing. It's simply an unsubstantiated opinion. JS

Today, 10:54 am

Rosinante  New Member Join Date: July 21, 2010 Posts: 81 Religion: Catholic

Re: Question to our 'seperated brethren' (protestants), who deny Mary, Theotokos Quote: Originally Posted by AbideWithMe  No, this isn't true. You're showing your own ignorance here. As just one example of my point, one of the most extensive, accessible sources of the writings of Early Church Fathers on the internet is at CCEL, which is a Protestant site. I'm well aware of the protestant *attempt* to pirate the Church Fathers, particularly from the Calvinista camp (to which the author of "yeah but but but.dot com' acknowleged he belongs). My comment however, was directed at the poster's comment that citing this or that obscure source, carried no authority with pro's.--that could refer to various personalities grouped within the rather broad groupoing known as Church Fathers--especially since they cover a period in excess of the existience of protestantism itself. So, now, after 500 years of sola scriptura, every man his own pope, the wrongness of 'traditions of men'...blah blah blah., ...our seperated bretheren now seek to invoke the Church Fathers' 'traditions of men', as not only authoratative, but in support of their own anti-Catholic views? Some how, these very same authority figures whose words carry addtional weight due to their cred amongs the Church...somehow, they were always arguing for sola scriptura, and never really respected Sacred Tradition.. That's just laughable...even if not intended to be funny...  VIVAT JESUS!

Today, 12:24 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 628 Religion: Reformed

Re: Question to our 'seperated brethren' (protestants), who deny Mary, Theotokos Quote: Originally Posted by Rosinante  I'm well aware of the protestant *attempt* to pirate the Church Fathers, particularly from the Calvinista camp (to which the author of "yeah but but but.dot com' acknowleged he belongs). "Calvinsta camp" appears to be meant in a mocking way. I note this based on the context of the comment from which it came, which mentions that those who are not Roman Catholic express views which are "just laughable...even if not intended to be funny." JS

Fan Club Testimonials

"Why do so many Protestants spend so much time using extra-Biblical sources to prove their beliefs? For instance, one guy named James Swan spends hours culling through Martin Luther's writings, and writings about his life; leaving no stone unturned to defend his hero. Every time he gets a new book on Luther he has to tell everyone about it on his blog. The guy has been dead for close to 500 years. Isn't this a form of veneration? Heavens no, far be it for the Protestant. After all, if you spend hours and days reading, writing and defending a man who shares your religious beliefs, we couldn't call that veneration could we?" [source]

Fan Club Testimonials

Here are some recent commendations about my interests in the Reformation from one of my Roman Catholic admirers:

"Just to summarize my thoughts here on discussing these things with you, it just ain't worth the effort. You are FAR interested in making pronouncements about this or that writer, or commenting on your preferred context means of establishing proper context, or making disparaging comments about me personally than you are in ACTUALLY DISCUSSING LUTHER. Especially Luther's beliefs on his own authority to teach and interpret. I think that your tactics are pretty obvious, even to us who are not intellectuals."

"Please feel free to burden someone else with endless discussions of sources and "James approved context". If you want to actually discuss Luther's beliefs about his own authority and compare your thoughts with those of other Reformed writers, you will have the opportunity. But just so you will know, I think it is cowardly to hide behind the typical "scholarly" tactic of simply refuting everything on the basis that you don't agree with this or that source, or whine that not enough or too many words from a given quote were used."

"In summary James, although I would like to engage in an honest dialogue with you about LUTHER and especially about his concept of his own authority, that appears to be impossible for you. Being a failed human I don't have the patience to be jerked around endlessly discussing your preferred set of writers, your non-preferred writers, your very exacting criteria regarding context (which never really becomes clear until I post quote, and rarely thereafter). I don't have the patience to have you constantly make me, or Dave, or this or that the issue. I think it is intellectually dishonest in that your motives are obviously to tie me up so that I don't have time to quote what you know I am going to."

Fan Club Testimonials

These are comments from the latest Feeding frenzy. I let these people speak for themselves. They are a reminder to all of us, "The things that come out of the mouth come from the heart."

"the issue is the double standard with which James Swan (and men like him who are also irrationaly biggoted towards Catholic personages of the past and present) operates. Furthermore, if James allowed quibbles to be quibbles when Catholics made them, then we would not be having this discussion. I agree that it comes across as petty, but there is a James Swan legacy of double standards here that is really irritating those of us who are aware of it."

"James, you make Bill Clinton look like a straight talker. Is the statement you made true or false. Never mind what you and Chris agreed to pretend it means. Did Luther "have a hand in the execution of Anabaptists?" You said "no." Do you stand by that or do you not? If you do then you should try and defend what you said. Saying that you and Chris have some secret squirrel code that caused you both to understand something different. Not only is that hard to believe but it is beside the point. You made a public statement. Words mean things."

"If I thought for one minute that the fact that he honestly misunderstood a plain English question would convince him that he might honestly misunderstand Catholic apologists or that he might honestly misunderstand medieval conciliar documents steeped in Thomist metaphysics he hasn't even studied, then I might agree with you. But expecting James Swan to actually learn any sort of restraint or common sense in his dealings with Catholics is like expecting a hungry lion not to kill a gazelle; unreasoning emotion isn't susceptible to reform by reasonable considerations. Consequently, the only service this can do is to point out the inconsistent quality of his critical thinking for those who might be inclined to uncritically take his word on the subject."

Fan Club Testimonials

Here's a comment from someone called "Sexy Secularist". My blog entry on "Luther and Reason" was evaluated, and my review of a Luther quote was said to be a "fatuously windbaggish and unconvincing contextualization. "

[Luther said] "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but — more frequently than not — struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

(I should note here that the trouble in sourcing this quote is that we can’t be sure that Luther actually said it. It’s taken from Tabletalk, a collection of sayings attributed to Luther, transcribed by his friends and students.

A fatuously windbaggish and unconvincing contextualization of the quote can be found here— at one point the author reasons that Luther’s embrace of self-contradictory and irreconciliable [sic] beliefs was proof of his genius. But I digress.)

Fan Club Testimonials

The fans speak on my research into the Reformers Mariology:

"Oh don't worry, James Swan knows exactely how to minimize this and cover it up as if Luther had said nothing at all. Just wait and see-- he will be on here talking about how you have somehow taken Luther out of context, how you have misrepresented his views, how there is a 'fundamental misapprehension and misapplication' of the views of Luther among Catholics, and how Luther never had devotion to Mary, about how all of what you said is most likely an interpolation by a later Catholic trying to make Luther look bad, or in the end, if he cannot minimize Luther they way he does Calvin, he will basically just say "So what? Luther is not my pope. He can believe what he wants." or whatever he might like to say. Whatever he says, I am sure it will be interesting."

Fan Club Testimonials

"A little warning next time about where your links lead is all that I ask. At best, one of us might get a computer virus. At worst, we might end up reading James Swan. " [source]