tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4164910523346972642.post2518837894162175773..comments2023-09-23T10:49:30.668-06:00Comments on Thoughts: Luther's Apologetic cont. / Luther and AnalogiesBrigittehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4164910523346972642.post-38516145286237464502011-08-24T11:45:59.817-06:002011-08-24T11:45:59.817-06:00James has struck me as a reasonable man and he is ...James has struck me as a reasonable man and he is in my prayers.<br /><br />It is never really about Luther. I love Luther because he has preached the gospel to me. When thus Calvin robs the gospel again my animal nature takes over.Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4164910523346972642.post-56060851248244195392011-08-24T11:20:05.451-06:002011-08-24T11:20:05.451-06:00Hi Brigitte,
Swan deletes my comments, and no rat...Hi Brigitte,<br /><br />Swan deletes my comments, and no rational discussion can be had with him because he personally despises me (has said I am mentally ill, etc.). I thought I could have a normal conversation with you, and that appears to be the case, but I understand if you don't want to discuss this at length. That's fine.<br /><br />I was simply noting that authoritative Lutheran sources had "Esther" and that this was why Catholics later cited it. All of the original material with "Esther" was Protestant (Aurifaber, Walch, and Hamilton). In 1834, Walch was the state of the art in primary Luther material. <br /><br />I posted here because I know my comment at Beggar's All will soon be deleted. :-)<br /><br />What I get sick and tired of is Swan's always insinuating that these things are due to deliberate Catholic dishonesty. That is not the case at all here (it's merely as textual variant in Luther collections), and in many other instances where he implies it.<br /><br />I have also defended Luther on many occasions where I thought he was getting a bad rap or being lied about. I'm not "anti-Luther." I am "pro-truth" wherever it lies. I like historical fact: best as they can be ascertained.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4164910523346972642.post-11352198398526590932011-08-24T09:59:41.847-06:002011-08-24T09:59:41.847-06:00I see now that you left a brief comment there. I ...I see now that you left a brief comment there. I have not followed the threads that James Swan was involved with, so I will not go into any of that.<br /><br />However, even if Luther had said that he would throw "Esther" in the Elbe, we understand that this would be in line with others in history who have questioned Esther's authoritativeness. In any case, the story is nice and instructive and the providence of God can be seen and appreciated. It does not have anything about Christ, and that's limits its usefulness and authority. Anybody could write a story about God's providence. I could write one.<br /><br />You might look over this list of links regarding the "anti-legoumena". <br /><br />http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com/2011/05/antilegoumena.htmlBrigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4164910523346972642.post-38857214096668735622011-08-24T09:50:45.166-06:002011-08-24T09:50:45.166-06:00Hello Dave Armstrong, greetings, I don't inten...Hello Dave Armstrong, greetings, I don't intend to bring this discussion here because I am not qualified to discuss Esther in detail and not about to immerse myself in this right now. You would be better off taking it up with James, but I think you have given up commenting there. I am nigh close to this course myself, at times, mostly frustrated at the lack of willingness to look at the shortcomings of Calvinistic theology. Some will not see or admit that the iron-clad "logical" "system" has led them down some garden paths of unscriptural teaching.<br /><br />Anyhow, we are discussing the authority of scripture further down, in relation to Becker's book, neo-orthodoxy and the way the "incarnational" understanding of Scripture is applied, and what it means to believe in the "living word."Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4164910523346972642.post-5681821904863197142011-08-24T09:12:48.053-06:002011-08-24T09:12:48.053-06:00Responding to your remark on Beggar's All:
Wh...Responding to your remark on <i>Beggar's All</i>:<br /><br />What's so "amazing"? The standard 18th-century edition of Luther's works (Walch) had "Esther," not "Esdras." That's the root of the "mistake" -- going back to Aurifaber's <i>Table-Talk</i> in 1566. WA reads differently. But if we want to understand the basis of this textual strain, it goes back to Protestant Sir William Hamilton, citing Lutherans Walch/Aurifaber in 1834. <br /><br />Yet somehow, all this Protestant internal disagreement is supposedly the fault of evil Catholics who merely cited official Lutheran collections of Luther's writings? I don't think so . . . <br /><br />I document all of this in my lengthy paper on it:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/08/anti-catholic-john-q-does-luther-esther.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.com