Replies

Dear Boatbums. You have evinced no sign you possess the charism of afflatus so you may as well just stop trying to attribute malign motives to me.

That aside, your suggestion that the fat, violent, antisemitic, vow breaking, drunk (I don't mean that in a bad way) is "Godly" is risible.

Now, if you were to write that Luther was insane and, thus, perhaps, not culpable for his manifest works of evil and his fetid heresies, then, maybe, you'd find in me a sympathetic ear.

Here is The Heresiarch in his,likely, mundane insanity.

Facts about Luther

March 3, 15 19, Luther addressed another letter to the Pope overflowing as usual with expressions of the greatest loyalty and most perfect submission. In it, amongst other things, he "calls God and man to witness that he has never wished and does not now desire to touch the Roman Church or the Pope's sacred authority; and that he acknowledges most explicitly that this Church rules over all and that nothing in heaven or in earth is superior to it, save only Jesus Christ our Lord." Only two weeks before he made this pronouncement calling God and man to witness his words, he wrote to his friend Scheurl I have often said that hitherto I have only been playing.Now at last we shall have to act seriously against the Roman authority and against Roman arrogance." (De Wette i, 230.)

This detestable hypocrisy is further confirmed when ten days after sending to the Pope the letter of March 3rd, he declared to his friend Spalatinus: 'I do not mind telling you, between ourselves, that I am not sure whether the Pope is Antichrist himself or only his apostle." (De Wette I, 239.)

A putative "Godly" man who is so manifestly emotionally labile is more accurately assessed as obviously insane; ok, I could grant you that he was intentionally "duplicitous" but that would mean he was culpable for his intellectual dishonesty and bearing of false witness.

Either way, as a Catholic writing about one who was Catholic and then fell away from the Faith (2 John 9 teaches that such a man hath not God), I will rely on Catholic sources rather than protestant sources who will try and explain away his many manifest works of evil.

Hmmmm...afflatus...I had to look that word up. It means: noun 1. inspiration; an impelling mental force acting from within. 2. divine communication of knowledge. I don't think you evidence such a gift, either. I don't blame Catholics for hating a man who spoke his mind about the deplorable condition of the Catholic Church in his day. I would hope that, had you been living at that time, you would have agreed with him. But hearing such words about an organization that requires total obedience and worship from its members probably is painful enough that any and every attempt is made to smear the man, who, living five hundred years ago cannot defend himself anymore except by the writings he left and the expectation that at least honest people would understand his message.

Your diatribes will do nothing do dissuade me from admiring the bravery and honesty of a man who loved the Lord Jesus Christ enough to speak out against the injustices and depravity of the church he had loved. It's curious that on this thread it was mentioned that of the 95 thesis Luther enjoined, that on nearly two-thirds of the points, the Catholic Church DID indeed correct themselves. That tells me that they acknowledge they needed correction and that the man was not the "insane heresiarch" haters insist he was.

As for "assigning malign motives" to you, one only needs to read your choices of out-of-context "quotes" and nasty adjectives to see that a motive of honest exploration of the truth was not the first incentive. Why you and others seem to think that smearing this one man will ever win over others to your cause is anyone's guess. You are preaching to your own choir of fellow haters. Your words have no effect on those who look to Christ instead of men to find the truth.