Places to Go to get the Truth in a Dispute... Augustine Style

Do you have a situation in which you're not sure who is telling the truth? Here's what Augustine recommends:

1) Find the grave of a Christian martyr or someone "holy."

2) Bring the disputants to that grave.

3) Await the outcome of the truth.

If you've got a criminal who needs to come clean and fess up, this may work as well.

2. Wherefore, beloved, in regard to that scandal by which some are troubled concerning the presbyter Boniface, I do not say to you that you are not to be grieved for it; for in men who do not grieve for such things the love of Christ is not, whereas those who take pleasure in such things are filled with the malice of the devil. Not; however, that anything has come to our knowledge which deserves censure in the presbyter aforesaid, but that two in our house are so situated that one of them must be regarded as beyond all doubt wicked; and though the conscience of the other be not defiled, his good name is forfeited in the eyes of some, and suspected by others. Grieve for these things, for they are to be lamented; but do not so grieve as to let your love grow cold, and yourselves be indifferent to holy living. Let it rather burn the more vehemently in the exercise of prayer to God, that if your presbyter is guiltless (which I am the more inclined to believe, because, when he had discovered the immoral and vile proposal of the other, he would neither consent to it nor conceal it), a divine decision may speedily restore him to the exercise of his official duties with his innocence vindicated; and that if, on the other hand, knowing himself to be guilty, which I dare not suspect, he has deliberately tried to destroy the good name of another when he could not corrupt his morals, as he charges his accuser with having done, God may not permit him to hide his wickedness, so that the thing which men cannot discover may be revealed by the judgment of God, to the conviction of the one or of the other.
3. For when this case had long disquieted me, and I could find no way of convicting either of the two as guilty, although I rather inclined to believe the presbyter innocent, I had at first resolved to leave both in the hand of God, without deciding the case, until something should be done by the one of whom I had suspicion, giving just and unquestionable reasons for his expulsion: from our house. But when he was laboring most earnestly to obtain promotion to the rank of the clergy, either on the spot from myself, or elsewhere through letter of recommendation from me, and I could on no account be induced either to lay hands in the act of ordination upon one of whom I thought so ill, or to consent to introduce him through commendation of mine to any brother for the same purpose, he began to act more violently demanding that if he was not to be promoted to clerical orders, Boniface should not be permitted to retain his status as a presbyter. This demand having been made, when I perceived that Boniface was unwilling that, through doubts as to his holiness of life, offense should be given to any who were weak and inclined to suspect him, and that he was ready to suffer the loss of his honor among men rather than vainly persist even to the disquieting of the Church in a contention the very nature of which made it impossible for him to prove his innocence (of which he was conscious) to the satisfaction of those who did not know him, or were in doubt or prone to suspicion in regard to him, I fixed upon the following as a means of discovering the truth. Both pledged themselves in a solemn compact to go to a holy place, where the more awe-inspiring works of God might much more readily make manifest the evil of which either of them was conscious, and compel the guilty to confess, either by judgment or through fear of judgment. God is everywhere, it is true, and He that made all things is not contained or confined to dwell in any place; and He is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth by His true worshippers, in order that, as He heareth in secret, He may also in secret justify and reward. But in regard to the answers to prayer which are visible to men, who can search out His reasons for appointing some places rather than others to be the scene of miraculous interpositions? To many the holiness of the place in which the body of the blessed Felix is buried is well known, and to this place I desired them to repair; because from it we may receive more easily and more reliably a written account of whatever may be discovered in either of them by divine interposition. For I myself knew how, at Milan, at the tomb of the saints, where demons are brought in a most marvelous and awful manner to confess their deeds, a thief who had come thither intending to deceive by perjuring himself, was compelled to own his theft, and to restore what he had taken away; and is not Africa also full of the bodies of holy martyrs? Yet we do not know of such things being done in any place here. Even as the gift of healing and the gift of discerning of spirits are not given to all saints? as the apostle declares; so it is not at all the tombs of the saints that it has pleased Him who divideth to each severally as He will, to cause such miracles to be wrought. [source].

I'm thinking the next time two Roman apologists can't agree on something, this procedure should be followed. Let's see if it works to determine which one is correct. Or perhaps in the next priest scandal this method may come in handy as well.

The "Call" to Being a Reformed Pastor

Here's a fun little theological brain teaser for those of you Reformed folks who think you may have a call to the ministry.

The first set of snippets comes from Derek Prime and Alistair Begg, On Being a Pastor (Chicago: Moody Publishers,2004):

[Quoting John Stott] "Whatever you may think of it, I have had a definite and irresistible call from God to serve Him in the church." [And then, Prime and Begg comment:] "To make such claims about God's call we must define our terms. By call we mean the unmistakable conviction an individual possesses that God wants him to do a specific task" (p. 18).

"...God always gives a clear call to those whom He has chosen for the ministry, so that when that call comes they can do nothing other than respond to it. It follows that if someone thinks he may be called to the ministry but is not absolutely certain, then he should wait until he is sure. God does not give uncertain calls" (p.19)

Then follows examples from the Old Testament (p. 20) and New testament (p.21-22) of those called by God to a specific task. The church isn't left out, but tests the call (p,25) and helps make that call an actuality.

The next example comes from Curtis Thomas, Practical Wisdom For Pastors (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).

"The biblical concept of a 'call to ministry' does not include a vision, special revelation, or mystical experience... It is true that in the Old Testament and in the first century of Christianity, God did intervene directly and call men to ministry. But today His revelation has been completed by the New Testament, and it is our reliable guide. Therefore, a local church should be able to take God's word and help the candidate assess whether or not he has been called to the gospel ministry" (pp. 20-21).

Now these small snippets run the risk of caricaturing the content of each book.  There's actually much overlap in the explanations. If one were to read these snippets in context, you'd see each author is concerned with the gravity of ministry, whether or not the person called has the gifts needed, and both emphasize the involvement and approval of the church.

But I think the approaches do differ.

In explaining the seriousness of entering the ministry, Begg and Prime want you to know that you will have some sort of strong feeling that you can't do anything but go into ministry. They liken it to those in the Scripture being called supernaturally for a specific task. They don't describe it as a mystical experience or extra-biblical revelation, but it certainly falls somewhere in that ballpark, perhaps nowhere near home plate, but rather deep somewhere in the Reformed outfield. It's far out there enough where Reformed people can speculate as to how God communicates outside of the Scriptures without reverting to some sort of Assemblies of God theology.

Now I don't know anything about Curtis Thomas (other than his book on the five points of Calvinism), but I would venture to speculate he strives to be a consistent cessationalist here. That is, God has revealed His will in the Scriptures. If you think you're having some sort of extra-biblical message from God telling you to go into the ministry, be careful. God stopped calling people supernaturally to specific tasks. The Bible is complete. You should not trust such intuitions, but rather subject yourself to your church. They will assess your situation and help you make the right decision.

I haven't worked through which of these approaches  (or perhaps neither) is the correct path. I'm not particularly keen on Prime and Begg's designation of  there being an "irresistible" call to the ministry. It seems to me this is using the terms of regeneration and applying them to a post-conversion experience. While their book isn't an in-depth treatment of this topic, my first question was in regard to those called supernaturally in the Bible that resisted the call to their special task, someone like Jonah for instance. Where does he fit in the Prime/Begg paradigm? Is is possible to resist the call for a season? What about those who are called "irresistibly" like Saul and fall away from their special calling?  Is it possible to begin ministry and then lose the calling? There probably are a number of ministers who read the Prime / Begg book before entering the ministry. They may have even felt some sort of strong inward call, and now, for whatever reason, they are no longer in the ministry. While the chapter from Prime and Begg makes good and helpful points, they left me with more questions than answers.

I found the approach briefly laid about Thomas a bit more convincing. I think it's not always wise to think every strong feeling one has is some sort of movement of the Holy Spirit. One needs to submit themselves to the local church they belong to, for better or for worse. The one problem though is that the paradigm used by Thomas smelled faintly of Romanism. A local church is not infallible. One thing is certain from the Scriptures, God sometimes takes the people we would least choose for important tasks. The tendency in conservative Reformed circles is to pick the people that are most conservative, or perhaps pick the people that most fit in to the subculture of a particular denomination.  I can see this sort of thing in conservative Dutch churches. Some of them probably would never consider hiring a non-Dutchman.

I don't claim to have any sort of answer to this brain teaser. I also posted this topic on the Puritan Board. This helps me keep track of things.

Luther Coined the Term "Antinomian?

I came across an interesting Luther-related fact: Luther actually coined the word "antinomianism." This one popped up in a discussion thread which stated: "Luther actually coined the word 'Antinomianism' to describe Agricola's beliefs."

Wikipedia states it's "a term coined by Martin Luther", so regardless if it's true or not Wikipedia will guarantee it will travel all over cyberspace as undisputed fact!

There's also a few books mentioning it. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states, "In fact, it was Luther who actually coined the word antinomianism in his theological struggle with his former student, Johann Agricola." The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell states, "The word was coined in the sixteenth century to denote the peculiar opinions of John Agricola and his followers in regard to the Law." The old Catholic Encyclopedia begins its entry on antinomianism  by stating,

"The heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law. The term first came into use at the Protestant Reformation, when it was employed by Martin Luther to designate the teachings of Johannes Agricola and his sectaries..."

Update 7/2020: As per LW 73:3, "An Antinomian (a term coined by Martin Luther from the Greek anti ["against"] and nomos ["law"] is one who rejects God's Law in some way."

Beggars All Goes to Brazil

A few of my blog entries have been translated into Portuguese:

http://www.e-cristianismo.com.br/pt/lutero/230-a-doutrina-da-predestinacao-de-lutero-e-reformada-

http://www.e-cristianismo.com.br/pt/lutero/220-lutero-disse-cristo-adulterio

http://www.e-cristianismo.com.br/pt/lutero/236-o-lutero-adventista-do-setimo-dia

http://www.e-cristianismo.com.br/pt/lutero/227-as-95-teses-foram-pregadas-ou-enviadas

Thanks Gustavo!

Luther on the term "Trinity"

Martin Luther: "the name 'Trinity' is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man":

"Lest my detractors hurl accusations of 'quoting out of context', and/or 'inaccuracy' in my direction, I want to make it quite clear from the start that Luther WAS NOT questioning the 'doctrine of the Trinity'; rather, he was advancing the notion that it is better to stick with Scriptural terminology, and refrain from non-Scriptural language."

If one simply searches Luther's Works for the word "Trinity," you would never arrive a the conclusion "it is better to stick with Scriptural terminology, and refrain from non-Scriptural language" in regard to his use of the term. In almost every instance I've read from Luther using the word "Trinity" it is positive. If Luther did want to avoid the word, it appears to only be in isolated instances, for in fact he used the term throughout his career. I think Luther realized the church was stuck with the term despite its inadequacy to describe the being of God.  For instance,

1. This epistle is read today because the festival of Holy Trinity, or of the three persons of the Godhead--which is the prime, great, incomprehensible and chief article of faith--is observed on this day. The object of its observance is that, by the Word of God, this truth of the Godhead may be preserved among Christians, enabling them to know God as he would be known. For although Paul does not treat of that article in this epistle, but touches on it only in a few words in the conclusion, nevertheless he would teach that in our attempts to comprehend God we must not speculate and judge according to human wisdom, but in the light of the Word of God alone. For these divine truths are too far above the reach of reason ever to be comprehended and explored by the understanding of man.

2. And although I have, on other occasions, taught and written on this article fully and frequently enough, still I must say a few words in general concerning it here. True, it is not choice German, nor has it a pleasing sound, when we designate God by the word "Dreifaltigkeit" (nor is the Latin, Trinitas, more elegant); but since we have no better term, we must employ these. For, as I have said, this article is so far above the power of the human mind to grasp, or the tongue to express, that God, as the Father of his children, will pardon us when we stammer and lisp as best we can, if only our faith be pure and right. By this term, however, we would say that we believe the divine majesty to be three distinct persons of one true essence. [Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 4.2, pp. 7-8]

See also: Luther Condemned the Word "Trinity"? (1/28/10)

Luther or Barth on the Old Adam Swimming away from Baptism?

Here's one from my friend Micah. He asked me if Luther said something like the old Adam is a very good swimmer. Off to Google, and a number of hits come up:

The Old Adam tries again and again to resurface from his drowning. Dr. Martin Luther once said, "The Old Adam is a very good swimmer"…[source]


The old Adam is drowned in baptism, though as Luther observed, "the old Adam is a mighty good swimmer," and keeps popping up. Baptism takes an instant, and requires a lifetime. [source]


Martin Luther said that, even in baptism, the old Adam remains a frightfully good swimmer. However, when faced with satanic assaults, Luther would grab a slate and chalk these words: "I have been baptized." [source]


Or as Martin Luther is reputed to have said, I tried to drown the old Adam in the waters of baptism, but the miserable wretch can swim!" [source]


Martin Luther says somewhere that “I thought that the old Adam drowned in the waters of baptism, but I discovered the miserable wretch can swim.”[source]

These are only a few of many versions of the quote. Now, what's interesting is that a few hits attributed the same sort of thing to Karl Barth:

Karl Barth once made, that even though the old Adam has been drowned in the waters of baptism, the problem of the human condition is that apparently that Old Adam still knows how to swim. [source]


Baptism is supposed to have drowned the old Adam, and a joke that Barth liked to make is, “It turns out the rascal can swim.” [source]


Karl Barth once said that the Old Creature drowns in baptism but is a good underwater swimmer. [source]

Conclusion
Luther used the imagery of the "Old Adam" often. It's possible he may have said something like the quote attributed to him. That I didn't find any sort of documentation is usually a good sign he probably didn't say it. My best guess is the quote isn't from Luther at all, but is rather from Karl Barth:

The Effectiveness of Petitioning Rome

ht: The Catholic Champion (Thanks Matthew!)

Interesting stuff to add to my "Blueprint for Anarchy" series: Petition: Belgian priests and laity call for reforms. This link isn't from some self-proclaimed Roman authority with access to the Internet. Anthony Ruff, OSB states:

"Just how many reformist petitions have been put forth by concerned Catholics in recent decades? Within Roman Catholic polity, such petitions are virtually the only way for reform-minded Catholics to address their concerns to the hierarchy. And their effectiveness seems pretty close to zilch. But the concerns don’t go away, and the petitions continue.


Here’s another one. 8,235 signatories in Flanders (the Dutch-speaking half of Belgium), including politicians and intellectuals as well as about a tenth of all Flemish priests, deacons and lay Church workers, have called for reforms including ordination of women and married people. On Thursday the petition was presented to the head of the Belgian bishops’ conference.


There will be more petitions. I don’t see the reformist concerns going away any time soon. The hierarchy probably will not get widespread buy-in from Catholics on the hot-button issues, not with a power structure perceived to be top-down and without representation or accountability. For its part the hierarchy (the pope, and the bishops appointed by him and his predecessor) probably will not budge on positions it considers unchangeable, even of divine origin. Much less will it budge on its exclusive claim to settle the issues."

Implications of "an honest summary of the state of Christendom at the end of the 15th century"

I skimmed through this recent account of a Tiber swim: An OPC Pastor Enters the Catholic Church. I found this comment from the author deep in the comments section:

Karl Adam, in his book Roots of the Reformation , offers an honest summary of the state of Christendom at the end of the 15th century: "[A]mongst the common people, a fearful decline of true piety into religious materialism and morbid hysteria; amongst the clergy, both lower and higher, widespread worldliness and neglect of duty; and amongst the Shepherds of the Church, demonic ambition and sacrilegious perversion of holy things….."

The argument from some of Rome's defenders goes like this: certainly there were church abuses during the sixteenth century. But Luther went too far. This new Roman convert thinks that things may have turned out differently had Luther "kept his ecclesiastical cool in the midst of the desperate need for moral reform." If there was ever a statement ignorant of history, this would certainly be a prime example. It assumes that a corrupt institution would actually politely take any sort of correction from an obscure monk. The facts of history show quite otherwise: the Luther situation was riddled with subterfuge and obfuscation, this coming from Rome herself. Luther was given a bogus hearing in which he was ultimately told to simply recant, or else. This new convert went to a Reformed seminary in which details of this information are readily available in their library. The details of Luther's kangaroo court hearing were no doubt also presented in a class specific to Reformation Church History (CH 313). Unless the requirements are now different, in order to graduate from Mid-America Reformed Seminary this class was required.  In other words, this new Roman convert has no excuse for such an ignorant portrayal of Reformation church history. The legalities of sixteenth century Romanism were not simply "hey chill out, things for you will be okay." No, you could find yourself executed quite easily and also find that the means of getting you to the point of execution weren't always fair. That Luther was never put to death for heresy should be the miracle that qualifies him for saint status in Romanism.

This section quoted from from Roman Catholic historian Karl Adam raises an interesting issue. After describing the abuses present in the church, Adam states: "In this waste of clerical corruption it was impossible for the spirit of our Lord to penetrate into the people, take root there and bring true religion to flower." It appears that for Romanism, God promises to preserve the papacy, and "papacy" equals "Church." The Spirit, according to Karl Adam can be blocked by the papacy herself from reaching the people. Now think bout this: Even though the papacy was severely corrupt (as described by Adam), the gates of Hell didn't prevail against her. In other words, some Roman Catholics view the possibility of the gates of Hell prevailing over the papacy as similar say, to a square circle. It's presupposed beforehand that it's an impossibility for the papacy to ever be that corrupt that the gates of Hell prevail against her.  Their entire argument about the preserved-from-error-papacy is simply a faith claim in which history needs to be tweaked to fit this presupposition.

Now compare this to what the Roman convert states:

"...moral abuses (as scandalous as they are) do not equal doctrinal error. Christ promised to preserve his Church in the truth of the gospel. And so he has, does, and will. Such a profound promise is consistent with the fact that men are not always morally faithful to the graces God gives them. Despite the weakness, frailty and sinfulness found within the Church, there is the divine guarantee that God, by his Holy Spirit, working in the college of bishops in union with the pope, will preserve his Church from teaching and believing that which is false in regard to the gospel."

This convert is likewise functioning with the church = papacy paradigm. There's another presupposition here that needs to be scrutinized: "Christ promised to preserve his Church in the truth of the gospel. And so he has, does, and will." Here's what isn't stated: previous to Trent there was not any official dogmatic statement as to what exactly the Gospel "is", certainly in regard to justification:

“Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification.” [Jaroslov Pelikan, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation [New York: Harper and Row, 1964], 51-52.

Pelikan says elsewhere:

"All the more tragic, therefore, was the Roman reaction on the front which was most important to the reformers, the message and teaching of the church. This had to be reformed according to the word of God; unless it was, no moral improvement would be able to alter the basic problem. Rome’s reactions were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers—Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition" [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52].

Once again, what's needed to be proven by Roman converts is simply assumed. It's assumed that the same "Gospel" decreed at Trent was the same "Gospel" previous to Trent.

The comments over at CTC will reach into the hundreds. For those of you that think you'll actually get somewhere in some sort of dialog with these new converts, you probably won't. Presuppositions are truths the heart believes without proof. If you don't first expose the unproven presuppositions, you're probably wasting your time.

"This is what Luther said about the 10 Commandments"

Here's one of those pesky "Luther said what?" threads from Catholic Answers,

#46       Jan 21, '12, 12:33 am

thistle  Forum Master Join Date: August 23, 2005 Location: I'm British but live in the Philippines Posts: 14,026 Religion: Catholic

Re: Martin Luther's New Testament Canon? Quote: Originally Posted by Zenkai  When did he say that? If he did say that, perhaps he got that idea because Christians aren't under the Law of Moses. We are under the moral laws, not the ritual laws. This is what Luther said about the 10 Commandments: "Their only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself" (Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364.) “Thou shalt not covet,’ is a commandment which proves us all to be sinners; since it is not in man’s power not to covet, and the same is the drift of all the commandments, for they are all equally impossible to us.” - "Moses is an executioner, a cruel lictor, a torturer a torturer who tears our flesh out with pincers and makes us suffer martyrdom . . . Whoever, in the name of Christ, terrifies and troubles consciences, is not the messenger of Christ, but of the devil . . . Let us therefore send Moses packing and for ever." (D. Martini Lutheri Exegetica Opera Latina, published by Elsperger (Erlangen, Heyder, 1829-84), Vol. 18 pg. 146) “We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (De Wette 4, 188). “It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.” (Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126) “If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (Comm. ad Galat, p.310).

#47       Jan 21, '12, 12:37 am

Zenkai  New Member Join Date: November 25, 2011 Location: St. Augustine, FL Posts: 145 Religion: Christian(hoping to start RCIA eventually)

Re: Martin Luther's New Testament Canon? Quote: Originally Posted by thistle  We are under the moral laws, not the ritual laws. Ok, but when did Luther say to get rid of the 10 Commandments? Perhaps he meant that they weren't necessary for Salvation.

#48       Jan 21, '12, 12:38 am

thistle  Forum Master Join Date: August 23, 2005 Location: I'm British but live in the Philippines Posts: 14,026 Religion: Catholic

Re: Martin Luther's New Testament Canon? Quote: Originally Posted by Zenkai  Ok, but when did Luther say to get rid of the 10 Commandments? Perhaps he meant that they weren't necessary for Salvation. See post #46.

#49       Jan 21, '12, 12:45 am

Zenkai  New Member Join Date: November 25, 2011 Location: St. Augustine, FL Posts: 145 Religion: Christian(hoping to start RCIA eventually)

Re: Martin Luther's New Testament Canon? Quote: Originally Posted by thistle  See post #46. Those seem to be taken out of context. Here, I googled one and this is what one of those quotes says in context: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...t-us-send.html

#50       Jan 21, '12, 12:51 am

thistle  Forum Master Join Date: August 23, 2005 Location: I'm British but live in the Philippines Posts: 14,026 Religion: Catholic

Re: Martin Luther's New Testament Canon? Quote: Originally Posted by Zenkai  Those seem to be taken out of context. Here, I googled one and this is what one of those quotes says in context: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...t-us-send.html Its not out of context. You are debating about Luther but having to google. I thought you had read his writings. If you have not then how could you say I was giving false information. I think we won't get far if you have to google every time I make a comment about Luther. Let me help you google. Here is everything Luther wrote or said: http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/luther.htm

#51       Jan 21, '12, 12:56 am

Zenkai  New Member Join Date: November 25, 2011 Location: St. Augustine, FL Posts: 145 Religion: Christian(hoping to start RCIA eventually)

Re: Martin Luther's New Testament Canon? Quote: Originally Posted by thistle  Its not out of context. You are debating about Luther but having to google. I thought you had read his writings. If you have not then how could you say I was giving false information. I think we won't get far if you have to google every time I make a comment about Luther. Let me help you google. Here is everything Luther wrote or said: http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/luther.htm I didn't memorize every word the man said! Did you even read the link? It shows that quote in-context.

#52       Jan 21, '12, 1:06 am

thistle  Forum Master Join Date: August 23, 2005 Location: I'm British but live in the Philippines Posts: 14,026 Religion: Catholic

Re: Martin Luther's New Testament Canon? Quote: Originally Posted by Zenkai  I didn't memorize every word the man said! Did you even read the link? It shows that quote in-context. Of course I read it. It doesn't change anything. By the way we risk getting the thread closed as it is about Luther's New Testament which would not be fair to the OP. If you want to start a new one on the Old Testament feel free.

#53       Jan 21, '12, 1:09 am

Zenkai  New Member Join Date: November 25, 2011 Location: St. Augustine, FL Posts: 145 Religion: Christian(hoping to start RCIA eventually)

Re: Martin Luther's New Testament Canon? Quote: Originally Posted by thistle  Of course I read it. It doesn't change anything. By the way we risk getting the thread closed as it is about Luther's New Testament which would not be fair to the OP. If you want to start a new one on the Old Testament feel free. Alright, but it does change everything. That quote, when read in-context, is far different from what it says out of context.

Jan 21, '12, 7:35 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 561 Religion: Reformed

Re: Martin Luther's New Testament Canon? Quote: Originally Posted by thistle  Its not out of context. You are debating about Luther but having to google. I thought you had read his writings. If you have not then how could you say I was giving false information. I think we won't get far if you have to google every time I make a comment about Luther. Let me help you google. Here is everything Luther wrote or said: http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/luther.htm Oh my. You think the quotes you posted in #46 are not out of context? Why don't you go over to your URL "http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/luther.htm" and find the context of those quotes? Let me help you out: your URL does not contain "everything Luther wrote or said." In fact, it only contains a very small sampling. I would be surprised if you could actually locate any of the quotes you used in #46 at that link. The ironic part is it's highly improbable that you actually took those quotes from the sources you list: Quote: Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364.) D. Martini Lutheri Exegetica Opera Latina, published by Elsperger (Erlangen, Heyder, 1829-84), Vol. 18 pg. 146 De Wette 4, 188 Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126 Comm. ad Galat, p.310 If you actually got your quotes from these sources, this would mean you know French, Latin and German, and then translated your quotes into English from books that have been out of print for years. I don't believe that for a second. No, you used Google and found some version of the slanderous webpage Luther, Exposing the Myth. So before you chastise someone for using Google, I suggest you start with yourself. Zenkai probably didn't realize that I was the author of the link posted in #49, but I suspect you did. I'll gladly defend any of the research that went into the content of these links: 1. "Their only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself" 2. “Thou shalt not covet,’ is a commandment which proves us all to be sinners; since it is not in man’s power not to covet, and the same is the drift of all the commandments, for they are all equally impossible to us.” 3. "Moses is an executioner, a cruel lictor, a torturer a torturer who tears our flesh out with pincers and makes us suffer martyrdom . . . Whoever, in the name of Christ, terrifies and troubles consciences, is not the messenger of Christ, but of the devil . . . Let us therefore send Moses packing and for ever."  4. "We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (deWette 4, 188). 5. “It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.” 6. “If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (Comm. ad Galat, p.310).  My links are specifically for people like "Thistle". It's one thing to disagree with Luther, it's quite another to deliberately misrepresent what he said. James Swan Last edited by TertiumQuid; Jan 21, '12 at 7:50 am.

...and that was the end of that.