Revisiting Martin Luther the Murderer

Here's one that came up on the Catholic Answers Discussion forums. A Roman Catholic participant was utilizing Father Mitch Pacwa for some Martin Luther information on the canon. A Lutheran participant responded by saying Father Pacwa  "is not a Luther scholar by any means and has falsely accused Luther of murdering with his own hands!" To which the Roman Catholic participant responded, "As for your claim that he falsely accused Luther of murdering with his own hands, I don’t believe that for one minute. Nor have I found evidence of anyone else saying such a thing," and that, "Father’s words are being taken out of their proper context."  No, Father's words are not being taken out of context. Yes, he did accuse Luther of murder.

This interaction is the result of something I posted back in 2010 (and also here). Father Mitch Pacwa was gearing up for the October 2017 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s posting of the 95 Theses. At the time, he was trying to put together a video series (as I now check his "Ignatius Productions" eight years later, it does not appear the project ever got off the ground). Back on March 08, 2010 he appeared on Catholic Answers live to discuss the Reformation.  During the interview,  a caller asked “In a nutshell, what did cause the Reformation?.”  Father Pacwa answers, “Luther was racked with guilt.” What was this guilt from? Pacwa explains “he apparently had killed somebody in a duel.” To deal with the guilt of murder and “a legalism within his own personality” caused him to begin “looking at doctrine differently than it had been under the various Catholics prior.” This lead to justification by faith alone by grace alone.

Another Roman Catholic participant stated, "I’ll just say, stuff on the internet needs to be vetted carefully. People get labeled as saying things they don’t say or what they do say is so recontextualized it doesn’t come close to what was actually said," and also, "Swain [sic] was apparently pointing to the book that made the claim Luther was in a duel and killed his friend. The real question is, did Fr Pacwa really say what he is accused of saying?"

Well, Here is the mp3 clip to verify this is what Father Pacwa stated. When I originally wrote about this back in 2010, I was pleasantly surprised that the editors of Luther's Works actually stopped by here and left me a comment about this:

Rev. Dr. Benjamin T. G. Mayes said...

Was Luther a murderer?

In the early 1980's, Dietrich Emme popularized the theory that Martin Luther entered the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt not due to his experience in a storm, but in order to escape prosecution after killing a companion (Hieronymus Buntz) in a duel in 1505 (Martin Luther: Sein Jugend- und Studentenzeit 1483-1505 [Cologne, 1982]). Emme's work on this point has been widely dismissed in recent scholarship as piling one speculative conclusion upon another (e.g., Andreas Lindner, "Was geschah in Stotternheim," in C. Bultmann, V. Leppin, eds., Luther und das monastische Erbe [Tübingen, 2007], pp. 109-10; cf. Franz Posset, The Front-Runner of the Catholic Reformation: The Life and Works of Johann von Staupitz[Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003], 94, and the response by Helmar Junghans, Lutherjahrbuch 72 [2005]:190).

The standard biographer of Luther claims that Hieronymus Buntz died of plague (Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483-1521 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985], 47), and this is documented in sources from 1505 (http://books.google.com/books?id=r2hHAAAAYAAJ&dq=Hieronymus%20Buntz&as_brr=3&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=Hieronymus%20Buntz&f=false).

The "duel theory" relies on one of Luther's Table Talks: "By the singular plan of God I became a monk, so that they would not capture me. Otherwise I would have been captured easily. But they were not able to do it, because the entire Order took care of me" (D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe[Weimar Edition]: Tischreden, vol. 1 [Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1912], p. 134, no. 326). Yet this refers to the Augustinian order's protection of Luther from Rome in 1518, not a putative flight from prosecution for dueling in 1505.

If Luther's "duel" were true, it would have been a matter of rather public knowledge, both casually, among students and the monks, and officially, both with whatever civil or episcopal authorities were supposedly trying to arrest Luther, as well as because a dispensation would have been required for Luther's ordination (homicide being a canonical impediment for the sacrament of order). In other words, it would be practically unthinkable that when the Roman Catholic polemical biographer of Luther, Johannes Cochlaeus, was searching for data about Luther's monastic career (and coming up with stories like Luther wailing in the choir) that such a "fact," if true or even rumored, would not have emerged.

Dr. Christopher Boyd Brown, general editor, Luther’s Works: American Edition
Dr. Benjamin T. G. Mayes, managing editor, Luther’s Works: American Edition
2:30 PM, MARCH 30, 2010 

2017 Reformation Rumblings

I know it should not come as a surprise that people are already thinking about the 500th anniversary of Luther's posting of the 95 Theses (the traditional date of the birth of the Protestant Reformation). Contrary to what many of you may think, I don't really think about it. I don't have a calender in which I'm putting "x's" over the passing dates with a gleeful anticipation.  I am surprised though at the few people I've come across that are already thinking about it. Perhaps it's because I read more Roman Catholic blogs and websites than Protestant Internet offerings. A few years back, I pointed out that Mitch Pacwa was working on a Reformation video series to be released in 2017. From a quick search, it doesn't appear there's been a lot of action from Ignatius Productions, but, they do still have a few years to go. Back when he first announced it, Pacwa was perpetuating the myth that Luther "apparently had killed somebody in a duel." I'd be curious to know how Pacwa's research  is going, and if it's gotten better.

Recently, I came across a Roman convert, Thomas Howard, offering his thoughts on the upcoming anniversary: Protestant Reformation Approaching 500. He mentions he and Mark Noll (author of Is The Reformation Over?) received a grant to host a conference on the upcoming 500th anniversary of the Reformation in November 2013. That to me comes across as somewhat of an irony: A Roman convert (someone who in essence should see the Reformation as a tragedy) and an evangelical (who thinks the Reformation is over) were given money to hold a conference to discuss "how best to commemorate the Reformation 500 years after the fact" "in anticipation of the upcoming milestone." Certainly no analogy is perfect, but it's kind of like giving money to two people who don't like you to plan your 50th birthday party. The first person belongs to family that should view your life as a tragic necessity, and the other thinks your life is over.

Mr. Howard states:

"...as the Reformation quincentennial approaches, Catholics ought to try to think about why so many, then and now, felt the necessity of the Reformation. Conversely, Protestants ought to consider why Catholics, then and now, have perceived it as tragic. That might not answer all questions, mend all divisions. But it might not be a bad place to start."

These are loaded questions, and I'd like to suggest that Roman Catholics not think about these questions, but rather ask Rome to answer the questions for you. Why should anyone be interested in hearing a Roman Catholic give their personal interpretation of history? Wouldn't one rather have an official spokesperson from Rome explain why the Roman church anathematized the Gospel and separated herself from the Catholic church? Ask them as well why Rome never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and why no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound. Tell them your tired of the confusion of opinions- how some Roman historians think Luther was the voice of Satan, while some Roman Catholic historians think he was a decent guy.

Addendum
This little aside didn't fit with my sarcastic jabs above. I'd like to suggest that a good study in preparation of the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation would be to explore earlier anniversaries of the Reformation, Particularly the 400th Anniversary. What  was going on in Germany in 1917? Or 1817? Will the PCUSA do this again? Should this be reprinted? Mr. Howard, if you come across this blog entry, feel free to make this one of the points of discussion in your November 2013 conference. In fact, feel free to invite me to present the lecture.

Another fascinating study, and perhaps Thomas Howard would benefit from this one, is a study in Roman Catholic treatments of Luther between 1883-1917. There was quite a resurgence in the vilification of Luther from the pens of Rome's defenders, some of whom had a noted zeal to besmirch the memory of Luther forever as a way to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the Reformation. I'll gladly give this lecture as well as the November 2013 conference.

Luther a Murderer?

On a recent post I mentioned Mitch Pacwa's upcoming Reformation video series. Pacwa was recently on Catholic Answers to discuss the project. He's looking to do a ten part series on the Reformation from a Roman Catholic perspective. I mentioned Pacwa says Luther "apparently had killed somebody in a duel" (here is the audio clip).

Buried in my e-mail spam was a tip from someone who thinks he might know where Pacwa got this tidbit from:

A German biographer named Hans-Joachim Neumann published a book in 1995 entitled Luthers Leiden (English title Luther's Suffering) in which he puts together some circumstantial evidence that in 1505 Luther killed a friend of his in a duel, the friend's name being Hieronimus Buntz, and that the reason Luther entered the monastery was to escape punishment.

So based on this tidbit, I've been looking around for more information. On this web page comes the following:

Luther’s biographer and admirer, Hans-Joachim Neumann has put together much circumstantial evidence, which indicates, that Luther (who was named ”Luder” until 1520) killed his friend Hieronimus Buntz in a duel in 1505 and entered a monastery to escape punishment. In addition, Luder had a relationship with a married woman since 1503. (Luthers Leiden [Luther’s Suffering] ob cit., p. 15 ff.)

Now the webpage is a typical example of Internet propaganda. However, that doesn't necessarily mean this fact is incorrect. Here's another web page tidbit translated from the German:

Evidence suggesting that Luther killed his friend in the dispute Hieronimus Buntz. 1529 Luther wrote about his time monk: "A man slayer I was" and the biographer of Veit Dietrich, 1532, the Table Talk Luther noted: "After the extraordinary decree of God, I was made a monk, so they do not take me prisoner. Otherwise I would be very easy been caught. As it was, they could not, because it took me to the whole Order. "

And another (Translated from Swedish):

There have been two duels, where Luther attended during his undergraduate studies. The first duel was under Dietrich Emmes inquiries between Luther and Conrad Wigant April 16, 1503 near Stotternheim. The second duel was fought between Luther and Hieronimus Buntz in January 1505 and died in that regard Buntz. Where it happened is still an open question.

And another (translated from Spanish)

As to Hans-Joachim Neumann's book, he's a professor and maxillofacial surgeon at the teaching hospital of the Humboldt University in Berlin. His book attempts to use current medical knowledge on Luther. That is, he looks at Luther's health from the historical reports, and then at times diagnoses his suffering and how that impacted his work.

I put this post together in about twenty minutes, so when I have more time, I'll be looking further into this based on the clues above.

Addendum #1
Just to prove I'm not the meanie some think I am, I searched the term "Dietrich Emme" and found a helpful bit of information via this link (Give credit when it's due). This blog posted an edited snippet from the magazine, Thirty Days: "Struck, But Not By Lightning," by Tommaso Ricci, No. 2, 1992, pp. 62-64), worth checking out on this topic.

I'm always curious as to the Roman Catholic interpretation of Luther and the Reformation. I do like Mitch Pacwa, but I've heard him say some not so true historical stuff on Luther and the Reformation over the years. Perhaps now that he'll be focusing directly on Luther and the Reformation, his facts will be updated. Sometimes we hear stuff, and just repeat it, not realizing it's wrong. With this particular event (or non-event), I'm hopeful he'll be fair. The conclusions seem to be based on circumstantial evidence, and it's interesting that not too many people have picked up on this, leading me to believe it's not compelling circumstantial evidence. Even Pacwa used the word "apparently". On the other hand, even if this "duel" is true, it doesn't change anything.

Addendum #2
Some of the editors of Luther's Works responed to this entry, and left the following comment:

Rev. Dr. Benjamin T. G. Mayes said...

Was Luther a murderer?

In the early 1980's, Dietrich Emme popularized the theory that Martin Luther entered the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt not due to his experience in a storm, but in order to escape prosecution after killing a companion (Hieronymus Buntz) in a duel in 1505 (Martin Luther: Sein Jugend- und Studentenzeit 1483-1505 [Cologne, 1982]). Emme's work on this point has been widely dismissed in recent scholarship as piling one speculative conclusion upon another (e.g., Andreas Lindner, "Was geschah in Stotternheim," in C. Bultmann, V. Leppin, eds., Luther und das monastische Erbe [Tübingen, 2007], pp. 109-10; cf. Franz Posset, The Front-Runner of the Catholic Reformation: The Life and Works of Johann von Staupitz[Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003], 94, and the response by Helmar Junghans, Lutherjahrbuch 72 [2005]:190).

The standard biographer of Luther claims that Hieronymus Buntz died of plague (Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483-1521 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985], 47), and this is documented in sources from 1505 (http://books.google.com/books?id=r2hHAAAAYAAJ&dq=Hieronymus%20Buntz&as_brr=3&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=Hieronymus%20Buntz&f=false).

The "duel theory" relies on one of Luther's Table Talks: "By the singular plan of God I became a monk, so that they would not capture me. Otherwise I would have been captured easily. But they were not able to do it, because the entire Order took care of me" (D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe[Weimar Edition]: Tischreden, vol. 1 [Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1912], p. 134, no. 326). Yet this refers to the Augustinian order's protection of Luther from Rome in 1518, not a putative flight from prosecution for dueling in 1505.

If Luther's "duel" were true, it would have been a matter of rather public knowledge, both casually, among students and the monks, and officially, both with whatever civil or episcopal authorities were supposedly trying to arrest Luther, as well as because a dispensation would have been required for Luther's ordination (homicide being a canonical impediment for the sacrament of order). In other words, it would be practically unthinkable that when the Roman Catholic polemical biographer of Luther, Johannes Cochlaeus, was searching for data about Luther's monastic career (and coming up with stories like Luther wailing in the choir) that such a "fact," if true or even rumored, would not have emerged.

Dr. Christopher Boyd Brown, general editor, Luther’s Works: American Edition
Dr. Benjamin T. G. Mayes, managing editor, Luther’s Works: American Edition

2:30 PM, MARCH 30, 2010 

Addendum #3
This entry was revised 4/3/2018 for formatting and dead links. Also, here is the audio clip of Father Pacwa saying Luther killed someone in a duel.

Mitch Pacwa and Luther's Canon

In looking over Mitch Pacwa's upcoming Reformation video series, I came across this page from Ignatius Productions. It's a set of audio clips from Pacwa on the Reformation. Here's a short mp3 clip from Pacwa on Luther removing books from the Bible. This snippet is part of a ten minute clip by Pacwa specifically on Luther (the clip is no longer available).

Here are Pacwa's assertions:

1. For two years, Luther tried to "kick out" the book of Revelation from the New Testament.

2. In the first edition of his New Testament translation, excluded Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation

3. Luther removed these books because they contradicted the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. Luther therefore never tried to "kick out" books from the Bible. I'm not sure why Pacwa mentioned an alleged "two year" struggle with the book of Revelation. I'm not aware of any historical discussion in the year 1524 from Luther (or the years in between) pertinent to taking Revelation out of the his translation.

Pacwa appears to be confused by Luther's prefaces, which I've covered here. It's often the case that Roman Catholics equate Luther's questioning of the canonictiy of certain books with taking books out of his published bible. For instance, Jimmy Akin used to say Luther "cut books out of the Bible." This is a typical error made by Roman Catholics.

As to the list of books Pacwa asserts Luther tried to kick out, I know of no evidence that Luther ever had any negative criticism inclining him to "kick out" 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. I checked Luther's original prefaces from 1522, and there's not even a hint of questioning these three books. In facts, of 2 & 3 John Luther stated, "The other two Epistles are not epistles of doctrine, but examples of love and faith, and have, besides, a true apostolic spirit" [Works of Martin Luther vol. 6 (Philadelphia Edition), p.476].

On the other hand, the person that did question the authenticity of these three books was Cardinal Cajetan, one of the leading Roman Catholic scholars of Luther's day. Will this fact make it into Pacwa's Reformation video series? I doubt it.

As to Luther removing books because they contradict justification by faith alone, the only book I'm aware of that would come close to Pacwa's description is the book of James. Luther's questioning of Jude primarily has to do with its status in Church history, and it’s internal evidence as to its apostolicity. As to Revelation and Hebrews, his reasoning was similar. Luther never explicitly adds Revelation to his list of “chief books.” However, his tone of writing in the 1530-revised preface contains only a remnant of the doubt as to its canonicity.With Hebrews, Luther’s opinion fluctuated throughout his career.

Pacwa's got a few years to straighten out his facts. So far, I've found him using the following questionable or erroneous facts:

Luther killed someone in duel

Roman Catholics responding nicely to Luther were made saints

Luther plagiarized an early German Bible, simply adding what he wanted to

Luther tried to kick books out of the Bible

Luther tried kick three books out of the Bible he thought were biblical.

Luther rejected James, Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John because they contradict justification by faith alone. The truth is, Luther's opinion of James is the closest that comes to Pacwa's description.

Did Luther Plagiarize His Translation of the Bible?

In looking over Mitch Pacwa's upcoming Reformation video series, I came across this page from Ignatius Productions. It's a set of audio clips from Pacwa on the Reformation. Here's a two minute Pacwa mp3 snippet on Luther adding the word "alone" to Romans 3. I've dealt with the "alone" charge here and here, so there's no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Pacwa says when Luther translated the Bible, he was simply using an already existing German translation of the Bible which he worked with and altered. One can't help then but conclude according to Pacwa, Luther didn't really translate the Bible, but rather revised a pre-existing translation. Attaching this to Luther's rendering of Romans 3:28, Pacwa basically indicts Luther of simply putting a word in an already existing translation. It was an alteration of Romans 3, not a translation.

There is indeed some interesting facts here. Philip Schaff addresses this controversy. After discussing pre-Reformation German Translations of the Bible, Schaff states:

Luther could not be ignorant of this mediaeval version. He made judicious use of it, as he did also of old German and Latin hymns. Without such aid he could hardly have finished his New Testament in the short space of three months.(8) But this fact does not diminish his merit in the least; for his version was made from the original Hebrew and Greek, and was so far superior in every respect that the older version entirely disappeared. It is to all intents a new work.

(8) Luther's use of the older German version was formerly ignored or denied, but has been proved by Professor Krafft of Bonn (1883). He adds, however, very justly (l.c. p. 19): "Es gereicht Luther zum grössten Verdienst, dass er auf den griechischen Grundtext zurückgegangen, den deutschen Wortschatz zunächst im N. T. wesentlich berichtigt, dann aber auch mit seiner Genialität bedeutend vermehrt hat."

So what's going on here? Both Pacwa and Schaff make the same point, but slightly spun different ways. For Pacwa, Luther simply altered an already existing translation. For Schaff, Luther did use the original Greek and Hebrew, but did use the older translation in order to finish his translation quicker.

This questioned was tackled head on by Johann Michael Reu, who was one of the foremost experts on the production of Luther's Bible. In his book Thirty Five Years of Luther Research. He explains it was actually a Lutheran who made the first helpful evaluation of pre-Reformation Bibles, W. Walther. From this study, Krafft contended that Luther had indeed used an earlier Bible as a translation source. This tidbit was then picked up by others, like Vedder, and expressed as:

"This version was certainly in the possession of Luther, and was as certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the "deadly parallel." It appears from a verse-by verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Luther's version is to call it a careful revision of the older text. Just as the English Bible is the result of successive revisions, from the days of Wiclif to our own, so that our text has a demonstrable historic continuity, so the German Bible is the product of revision. This is not to detract in the least from the glory of Luther or to diminish the value of his version—it is merely to define with accuracy what he accomplished, and to distinguish his real achievement from the semi-legendary tales of Lutheran literature."

"It would be difficult in any case to believe that a complete translation of the entire New Testament could have been made by a man of Luther's limited attainment in Greek, and with the imperfect apparatus that he possessed in the short space of ten weeks. . . . Any minister to-day who has had a Greek course of a college and seminary is a far better scholar than Luther. Let such a man, if he thinks Luther's achievement possible, attempt the accurate translation of a single chapter of the New Testament—such a translation as he would be willing to print under his own name—and multiply the time consumed by the 260 chapters. He will be speedily convinced that the feat attributed to Luther is an impossible one."[source]

Reu counters:

"Walther shows how just in all those places, where the use of the mediaeval Bible through Luther must have shown itself, granted that Luther used it at all,—for example, in difficult passages,—that just there entirely different translations are to be found, different not only as to the words used, but also as to the method of translation in respect to style as well as to syntax. Parallels only show themselves there where the renderings—especially in the historical books—might, because of their nature, be alike, without being copied. If Luther really was acquainted with the Bible of the Middle Ages, he did not use it. During the first phase of his translation work, and the one that gave the work its characteristics, he was not acquainted with it, as we can state with a reasonable degree of definiteness. Only later he became acquainted with it, and then, as we can see now, in his revisions and corrections he occasionally supplanted his own word with one from it."

"And just this we pronounce childish argumentation [Vedder]. We could call attention to the fact that R. P. Olivetan completed his French translation of the entire Bible, printed 1536, in one year; that Luther finished his writing against Sylvester Prierias, that in Walch's edition fills 80 columns, in two days; that Luther was in fact a linguistic genius; that an educated man in the thirties acquires a dead language much faster and more thoroughly than a youth from 16 to 20, and this all the more, the dearer and more valuable, yes, even decisive for his whole life, the contents of a book written in that language is to him; that Luther since 1519 had been a careful reader of Homer, writing many marginal notes into the copy which Melanchthon had presented to him (this copy is extant at London, cf. Pr. Smith, Notes from English libraries, Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 32, pp. 111-115; compare also: O. G. Schmidt, Luther's Bekanntschaft mit den alten Klassikern, 1883). We also could emphasize the important fact that Luther for more than ten years was well versed in the contents of the New Testament through the Vulgata. But aside from this we would like to ask Vedder whether he has forgotten that Luther, as can be proved, since 1516 used the Greek original in the preparation of his lectures, and certainly not seldom also when he prepared his sermons, and that it more and more became the foundation for his whole theological work; that he, before his stay at the Wartburg, had treated the Epistle to the Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, perhaps also the Epistle to Titus and the first to the Corinthians in lectures, the Epistle to the Galatians beside this also in a voluminous commentary; in short, that Luther lived and moved in the New Testament, and, finally, that the printing of his translation had not begun for two months after his return from the Wartburg, and that it was not completed before six months had passed? During this time he, together with Melanchthon and other occasional helpers, once more revised the whole in a most painstaking manner."

Does Reu set the record straight? I'd have to see what analysis has been done since Reu. Reu does admit Luther used it, but not to the extent expressed by Vedder and Krafft.

Mitch Pacwa's Series on the Reformation, Continued

Here's another troubling factoid to go along with my recent post on Mitch Pacwa's upcoming Reformation video series. Pacwa was recently on Catholic Answers to discuss the project. He's looking to do a ten part series on the Reformation from a Roman Catholic perspective.

In this mp3 clip, Pacwa describes the hostile rhetoric and dialog that both sides used toward each other. He goes on to point out that there were Roman Catholic apologists that responded to Luther, minus the abusive rhetoric, and these men went on to become saints. They responded to Luther with respect, not vitriol. Pacwa says this contributed to making them saints.

As I work through the list of Romanist-apologist contemporaries of Luther in my own mind, this list of those not responding with abusive rhetoric, or even mildly abusive rhetoric is quite small. At this point, I can only think of Cajetan, but even then, I'd have to go back and check further. This Cajetan is on the list of saints, but isn't the one who interacted with Luther (I have to thank the Beggars All troll for catching that, I earlier thought the saint was Thomas de Vio Cajetan).

So exactly whom is Mitch Pacwa referring to? Saint Erasmus? Saint Cochlaeus? Saint Eck? Saint Wimpina? Saint Tetzel? Saint Prierias? Saint Alveld? Someone with more time on their hands can search the list of saints.

I'm having doubts as to how fair and balanced Pacwa's series is going to be.

Pacwa vs. Martin

Here's one I'm going to read over in the next few days. It's the transcript from the discussion between Mitch Pacwa and Walter Martin. This discussion took place back in the 1980's, and I recall watching the shows when they aired. I recall also getting the tapes of the broadcast some years later, and noting that some things seemed to be missing.

The transcript may in fact be the unedited version, which I'm interested in reading. I recall Mitch Pacwa doing very well, and Martin not doing very well. I simply don't recall any specifics from this discussion, so i look forward to having my memory refreshed.

I dare say, I don't know how anybody who is not Reformed stands any chance against a true Roman Catholic apologist.

Here is the link.