Of course it was new, and foundational, which is why he must be defended at all costs so the religion which depends on him being saved, despite his plotting the destruction of the Jewish people, not be illegitimate. Just return Matthew 25 for a full refund.
Irrelevant to the discussion. We were discussing theologians departing Rome. Luther et. al. were mentioned.
NKP then digressed to Luther not being a doctor of theology. When confronted with this incorrect information he then digressed further by bringing up Luther was the first to declare in Romans 3 faith alone. Then it was posted the long list of theologians before Luther stretching centuries, who came to the same conclusion as Luther did later. To include a few Roman Catholic Bibles expressing such.
Somehow, for some reason, you introduced a history of Luther as an antisemite and stated Hitler used his writings to justify the slaughter of Jews.
How much more digression, and shell game tactics shall we see?
It seems to me the thread has reached culmination. Because when an RC has nothing more to say they dig up Luther’s bones. Which does have some historical foundation in Papal history.
So am I to conclude some posters don’t want to admit they were incorrect on historical facts so they double down on another hand of three card monty?
So if you have a refutation of what the poster listed (post #252) as the historical precedent of “sola fide” let’s have it please.
Or maybe these ridiculous rabbit holes could be avoided if posters stopped doubling down on the ridiculous assertions.