As is typical so many times on these threads when some simply MUST resort to denigration, sneering one-up-manship and superiority, we have access to documentation that certainly can be called Unbiased. All of the things you accuse Luther of doing - things that you use to justify your continued attacks on all non-Catholics that DARE to challenge Roman Catholicism - can be viewed in a manner that demonstrates the duplicity of the Catholic Church and clarifies the views of reformers such as Luther.
You claim Luther:
lied - like what for example?
distorted - what did he distort?
duplicitous - about what?
supported bigamy - not anymore than Pope Clement VII did (see http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=bigamy
cut books from the Bible - already talked about this - he didn't
attacked God’s Church - he attacked the decrepit mess Rome had made of the Church
encouraged rebellion and theft, schism, and vow breaking - like where?
You boast that you have read "all" Luther's works and are quite familiar with him. You toss out these invectives against him but fail to place these accusations in context, if true at all, and conveniently leave out facts that show your own bias and duplicity. I'm not a Lutheran, but I am a former Roman Catholic who left after coming to the knowledge of the truth concerning salvation by grace through faith apart from works - a MAJOR part of the Reformation that I thank God HE allowed to happen. Though it was not the first one it was certainly the most productive and millions of people were and still are being saved as a result. A great book available online on Google is Sermons on the Creed of Pope Pius IV by John Nash Griffin. Very informative about the times surrounding the Reformation and the condition of the Church at that time.
We have already discussed the Canon of Scripture on this thread and others recently, though it is an ongoing topic that never seems to be settled no matter how many facts are presented. Now if anyone is REALLY interested in something more than polemics and out-of-context quotes and positions of the man, there are numerous sites to go to to get a true and unbiased look at the man, Luther. A few I suggest that speak to the Roman Catholic perspective, good and bad, are: http://tquid.sharpens.org/catlut1.htm and http://tquid.sharpens.org/catlut2.htm
Rather than condemn all "Protestants" as "Anti-Catholic Protestant liars" who dare participate on these threads, why not get out of the middle ages and talk about right now, today? We could go on and on with recriminations about who did what to whom and when, but why? What is the benefit of that? Can we not discuss in a respectful and loving manner the doctrines that divide us? Cannot iron sharpen iron or must it always be nastiness over issues none of us can go back and do anything about? Doesn't it get tiresome after awhile? Is this how fellow Christians are supposed to talk to each other? I expect to be pounded now - though I hope I am wrong - but at least I said what I feel needed to be said. Free Republic's Religion Forum is too good of a place to be turned into a battlefield all the time. We have REAL battles to fight this election year.
You wrote:
“lied - like what for example?”
About his obedience to the pope. About his never having seen a Bible. About his stories about the devil. About his translating the New Testament on his own.
“distorted - what did he distort?”
Romans 3:28.
“duplicitous - about what?”
Look at what he lied about.
“supported bigamy - not anymore than Pope Clement VII did (see http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=bigamy";
That doesn’t change the fact that he did it, and that he tried to keep it hidden.
“cut books from the Bible - already talked about this - he didn’t”
He did. He published his NT in an unpaginated appendix to show he considered the books uncanonical.
“attacked God’s Church - he attacked the decrepit mess Rome had made of the Church”
Nope. He encouraged princes to seize Church property. He lived in a stolen religious house so he personally benefited.
“encouraged rebellion and theft, schism, and vow breaking - like where?”
Like the Protestant Revolution. That was rebellion. He encouraged the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order to violate his vows and seize control of Prussia ans turn it into a personal possession. That’s rebellion and theft right there. Luther’s sect is clearly an act of schism. Luther broke his own vows and encouraged others to do the same.
“You boast that you have read “all” Luther’s works and are quite familiar with him. You toss out these invectives against him but fail to place these accusations in context, if true at all, and conveniently leave out facts that show your own bias and duplicity.”
False, I left out no necessary context. Anyone can read the works fo Luther. Anyone can read about his life and realize he had issues to say the least. Ever read Rix? I bet not.
“Rather than condemn all “Protestants” as “Anti-Catholic Protestant liars” who dare participate on these threads, why not get out of the middle ages and talk about right now, today?”
First, I never did what you accuse me of - I do not condemn all Protestants. I do not condemn all Protestants as anti-Catholics. But leave it to a Protestant anti-Catholic to claim I said something I never said. Incredibly you make this claim in a thread in which you demand examples from me. Okay, show me where I “condemn all “Protestants” as “Anti-Catholic Protestant liars”. Can you show that? No, you can’t. The closest you can come to what you’re claiming in this thread is 121 where I say “Protestant” two or three times but always clarify that with “Protestant anti-Catholic”. By the way, everything I said in 121 is clearly true and you’re proving it now.
Second, as a Church historian, probably the only one in this entire thread, I have every right and reason to “not get out of the middle ages”. It’s what I study. Why shouldn’t I participate in threads about it? Also, Protestant mythology is highly but falsely developed concerning the Middle Ages and the Protestant Revolution. Such Protestant distortions about history have always interesed me and are increasingly interesting other historians. Far too often Protestants here at FR offer one of two options: 1) distortions of the past, 2) encouragement of abandoning study of the past because it supposedly doesn’t help people in the present. I reject both of those options.
“We could go on and on with recriminations about who did what to whom and when, but why?”
For heretics and schismatics of the past recriminations are necessary when they have been built up into heroes.
“What is the benefit of that?
The benefit is that it is truthful, honest, fair and just. Heretics and schismatics should be exposed.
“Can we not discuss in a respectful and loving manner the doctrines that divide us?”
I discuss Protestant heresies honestly. Nothing more is needed.
“Cannot iron sharpen iron or must it always be nastiness over issues none of us can go back and do anything about?”
What it must be is honest.
“Doesn’t it get tiresome after awhile?”
I never tire of honest statements about the history of the Church.
“Is this how fellow Christians are supposed to talk to each other? I expect to be pounded now - though I hope I am wrong - but at least I said what I feel needed to be said.”
I think the problem is the apparent hypocrisy of your statements. On August 5th, for instance, when you were debating in a thread called “The Primacy of Peter” you said things such as:
“What I find even MORE interesting is the wool so many Catholics willingly allow to be pulled over their eyes so that they can continue to believe that myth.” You said this right before you posted a long quote from an anti-Catholic website that discussed the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals.
Gee, doesn’t that sound like you’re posting about “issues none of us can go back and do anything about”?
How about when you say, “But the historical record gives a very different picture.” Is that talking about “issues none of us can go back and do anything about”? Yeah, it is. And yet you’re talking about it. Hypocrisy, isn’t it? Such hyporcrisy is common among Protestant anti-Catholics. What is so shocking is the apparent hubris that comes through. How can a Protestant anti-Catholic blame someone for supposedly dwelling on “issues none of us can go back and do anything about” while rather routinely doing it himself AND NOT SEE THAT PROBLEM?
“Free Republic’s Religion Forum is too good of a place to be turned into a battlefield all the time. We have REAL battles to fight this election year.”
And yet, as I just showed, you’re neck deep in that battle at times. If you find the battle so desultory get out of it, and ease your conscience if it is so stricken. You could just post as you say others whould post, no?