Martin Luther's customized personal bible


#1

I posted this in another thread, but no answer yet. And I’m also wondering how anybody can justify this. How can anyone claim to be “sola scriptura”, yet be free to pick and choose whatever they want from the bible to begin with? Also, from the quote, you would be expected to believe the whole reformation came about because of some minor quibbles but still the big bad Catholic Church just couldn’t take any dissent so the other party was unjustly excommunicated right then and there.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

Re: In what order did each church appear?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonWI
*I am not sure what the disagreement is. Neither of us think the gates of hell have ever prevailed. I never said any Catholic Church dogma was corrected. I never raised the issue of infallability.

What happened in 1517 (and 1054) had nothing to do with any of these random issues. In both cases, some members in the church pointed out human error, and the Roman response was: you’re excommunicated! In neither case did the excommunicated parties say anything about the gates of hell prevailing or infallable doctrine being corrected.*

Luther’s initial justification for the revolt was the instance of abuses with the indulgences (human error). How, then, does this explain Luther’s completely unrelated decision to just decide to take books out of the Bible he didn’t agree with, as well as his delcaration of “faith alone” (both “correcting” previously held infallible doctrines of the church). He also maintained that the Pope was really the AntiChrist. Is it really that hard to understand why they excommunicated him?


#2

Who ever claimed that Luther was infallible?

If we examined the lives and morality of some of the more colorful popes, do you think they were more or less moral and righteous than Martin Luther?

Remember, Luther was a catholic who wanted to reform the church, not an outsider who wanted to trash it.

Instead of trading Luther-bashing and pope-bashing (you lose hands down) why dont we address the real issue of sola scriptura – when the traditions of men are elevated above the Word of God, do you have the true Christian faith or a false religion?


#3

[quote=justaccord]Who ever claimed that Luther was infallible?

[/quote]

No one did. The Lutheran Church is not a cult of personality.

Ad homonyms are a way to avoid issues. Why discuss the fact that neither the Lutherans nor the Orthodox ever went out and “started” their own churches when you can justify (in your mind) excommunication of critics instead?


#4

[quote=exoflare]I posted this in another thread, but no answer yet. And I’m also wondering how anybody can justify this. How can anyone claim to be “sola scriptura”, yet be free to pick and choose whatever they want from the bible to begin with?
[/quote]

Hi There exoflare,

Here’s my gift for you:

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

I have some corrections to make this summer when I get a chance, but nothing serious.

Regards,
James Swan


#5

[quote=justaccord]Who ever claimed that Luther was infallible?

If we examined the lives and morality of some of the more colorful popes, do you think they were more or less moral and righteous than Martin Luther?

Remember, Luther was a catholic who wanted to reform the church, not an outsider who wanted to trash it.

Instead of trading Luther-bashing and pope-bashing (you lose hands down) why dont we address the real issue of sola scriptura – when the traditions of men are elevated above the Word of God, do you have the true Christian faith or a false religion?
[/quote]

Luther was not infallible and that is very apparent.

Some Popes did have personal moral issues that were not in accordance with a good, Christian life. But with the help of the Holy Spirit the Church was protected from error.

It’s simply a load of bull that Luther just wanted to “reform” the Church. He wanted to make it fit is wants. He was a man who was insecure about his faith. If it were simply a question of indulgences and the type of life some monks clergy were living, which were full of horrendous acts and lavish overindulgence, than I could understand a protest more. However, he removed books from the Bible, said goodbye to Purgatory, and tried some other “questionable” acts.

As far as the traditions of me elevated over the Word of God…it has been addressed over and over on this forum. You come across as another misguided person. If you would like to discuss traditions of men versus the Word of God, please start another thread and I will be very happy to debate with you.

DU


#6

Thomas Jefferson also wrote his own “bible”. He cut out all of the parts of the Bible he didn’t think were authentic. His bible is in print and is called Jefferson’s “Bible”: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.


#7

[quote=exoflare]I posted this in another thread, but no answer yet. And I’m also wondering how anybody can justify this. How can anyone claim to be “sola scriptura”, yet be free to pick and choose whatever they want from the bible to begin with? Also, from the quote, you would be expected to believe the whole reformation came about because of some minor quibbles but still the big bad Catholic Church just couldn’t take any dissent so the other party was unjustly excommunicated right then and there.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

Re: In what order did each church appear?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonWI
*I am not sure what the disagreement is. Neither of us think the gates of hell have ever prevailed. I never said any Catholic Church dogma was corrected. I never raised the issue of infallability. *

What happened in 1517 (and 1054) had nothing to do with any of these random issues. In both cases, some members in the church pointed out human error, and the Roman response was: you’re excommunicated! In neither case did the excommunicated parties say anything about the gates of hell prevailing or infallable doctrine being corrected.

Luther’s initial justification for the revolt was the instance of abuses with the indulgences (human error). How, then, does this explain Luther’s completely unrelated decision to just decide to take books out of the Bible he didn’t agree with, as well as his delcaration of “faith alone” (both “correcting” previously held infallible doctrines of the church). He also maintained that the Pope was really the AntiChrist. Is it really that hard to understand why they excommunicated him?
[/quote]

Worked for awhile until “Lutherans” stepped out of line with Luthers “sola scriptura” views and then the drownings began! A failed experiment…


#8

One thing that is being horribly overlooked is the time line on some of these issues. Luther was excommunicated long before he called the Pope antichrist and translated his own Bible. It should also be noted that he was not the first by a long shot to think that the deutercanonicals were not inspired.

Luther excluded certain Books from his Canon on the same grounds that the Roman Catholic Church has excluded certain Apocryphal books. He simply felt that they were in error so they could not be scripture – the Catholic Church has excluded books for just the same reason.

Do I agree with Luther on most of these assertions? No… but you have to be honest and fair when creating an argument.


#9

when the traditions of men are elevated above the Word of God, do you have the true Christian faith or a false religion?

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

When Christianity is practiced one way from 33 AD to 1517 AD and then a German monk tries to change it do you have the true Christian faith or a false religion? :wink:


#10

[quote=JP2ImissU]when the traditions of men are elevated above the Word of God, do you have the true Christian faith or a false religion?

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

When Christianity is practiced one way from 33 AD to 1517 AD and then a German monk tries to change it do you have the true Christian faith or a false religion? :wink:
[/quote]

The answer to each question, will depend on what sort of religion one is talking about in each case.

It isn’t self-evident that Lutheran Protestantism is not "the true Christian faith. It might well be closer to the intentions of Christ than late medieval Catholicism in some respects, while being further from those intentions in other respects.

The argument from dating is not by any means final - if it were, what about some Catholic dogmas ? St. Augustine has nothing to say about the Assumption of Mary: yet it is a post-Reformation dogma, so, later than anything done by Luther :slight_smile:

The argument that goes “if later than X, then less legitimate than X,” would destroy Christianity: it was later than Judaism, and later than Hinduism (which may be the oldest religion in existence). ##


#11

[quote=Shibboleth]One thing that is being horribly overlooked is the time line on some of these issues. Luther was excommunicated long before he called the Pope antichrist and translated his own Bible. It should also be noted that he was not the first by a long shot to think that the deutercanonicals were not inspired.

Luther excluded certain Books from his Canon on the same grounds that the Roman Catholic Church has excluded certain Apocryphal books. He simply felt that they were in error so they could not be scripture – the Catholic Church has excluded books for just the same reason.
[/quote]

Help me out with this please. The Catholic Church claims its authority to decide on inspired text over a period of decades is from God through apostolic succession over a period of centuries. For over a millenium, the Bible is as the Church defined it. Then along comes Luther the Catholic. Later, Luther is excommunicated from the Catholic Church and decides that he can do a better job of defining the Bible. Did he think that the Church perpetrated error on the entire world for over 1000 years?

So where does Luther claim his authority to decide on inspired texts? I assume from God. If so, then by what means did God pass this authority to him? And should everyone follow Luther’s example of deciding on their own what should be in the bible and what should not? If not, then why not?

Jeff


#12

You must realize that the few times the Church has gotten together to decide what Scriptures were inspired and what were not it was a careful intellectual endeavor. The Magisterium took the advice and works of many many Biblical Scholars in order to make their decision. The decision did not come from the sky on a glowing platter.

The Canon as now used by The Catholic Church was first compiled, translated, and bound by scholars that had no authority. The Magisterium did not have anything directly telling them that these were inspired scriptures other than the work of past Biblical Scholars and tradition. So up to that extent Luther was just as viable as these individuals - and as I pointed out before many Biblical Scholars in the past also felt that the Deutercanonicals were not inspired.

All that the Magisterium did was defined infallibly which avenue of belief was correct. Do they have that power, well I think that properly created Ecumenical Councils do indeed have this ability but I don’t think that The Council of Trent fits that bill.

An interesting note is that although the cannon is closed in the fact that no new scriptures can be written the Catholic Church understands and holds that there could be lost Scriptures that are not in the Catholic Cannon at this time. As a matter a fact we are assured of it because in 1 Corinthians Paul talks about a letter that we do not have… So neither party can pretend as though one Cannon is full and complete…

As far as Luther and authority - he would hold that no one person has the end all authority on the issue including him and that we are all prone to error due to our sinful and imperfect nature.

He readily acknowledged that although he felt that books such as James were not inspired he admitted that he could be incorrect and had no qualms about others including in in their Canon. Today Lutherans do not follow Luther’s list of inspired books and have put many back in the Bible that took out…


#13

[quote=Shibboleth]You must realize that the few times the Church has gotten together to decide what Scriptures were inspired and what were not it was a careful intellectual endeavor.
[/quote]

Agreed. And the intellect was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Magisterium took the advice and works of many many Biblical Scholars in order to make their decision.

Yes, I too think that the Church listened to reason.

The decision did not come from the sky on a glowing platter.

Where did I or anyone else imply a “glowing platter”?

The Canon as now used by The Catholic Church was first compiled, translated, and bound by scholars that had no authority.

Well, that’s your opinion. I and about 1,000,000,000 others would disagree with you.

The Magisterium did not have anything directly telling them that these were inspired scriptures other than the work of past Biblical Scholars and tradition.

Do you mean Sacred Tradition? If so, then I would agree.
The Church is made up of men. They had to rely on their
intellect and reason, while praying for guidance from God.

So up to that extent Luther was just as viable as these individuals - and as I pointed out before many Biblical Scholars in the past also felt that the Deutercanonicals were not inspired.

Luther, like the Magisterium, has intellect and reason.
But Luther wasn’t in communion with the Church, and I would claim that he did not receive divine guidance. Why would Christ establish a Church and allow it to teach error for 1000+ years, especially when he said the gates of hell would not prevail against it? Isn’t error synonymous with hell? Also, not every biblical scholar was correct. Some thoght the Gospel according to Peter was inspired. They were wrong. The Church decided once and for all who was correct and who was incorrect. I believe that the Magesterium had the authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

All that the Magisterium did was defined infallibly which avenue of belief was correct. Do they have that power, well I think that properly created Ecumenical Councils do indeed have this ability but I don’t think that The Council of Trent fits that bill.

Well, why doesn’t The Council of Trent fit the bill?

An interesting note is that although the cannon is closed in the fact that no new scriptures can be written the Catholic Church understands and holds that there could be lost Scriptures that are not in the Catholic Cannon at this time. As a matter a fact we are assured of it because in 1 Corinthians Paul talks about a letter that we do not have… So neither party can pretend as though one Cannon is full and complete…

As far as Luther and authority - he would hold that no one person has the end all authority on the issue including him and that we are all prone to error due to our sinful and imperfect nature.

He readily acknowledged that although he felt that books such as James were not inspired he admitted that he could be incorrect and had no qualms about others including in in their Canon. Today Lutherans do not follow Luther’s list of inspired books and have put many back in the Bible that took out…
Purely from a “save my hide from hell” perspective, why would I choose to accept the teaching of someone who admits that he can be in error when the Catholic church claims its doctrine is not in error and demonstrate their history all the way back to the apostles?

Thank you for your direct answers. However, you still didn’t answer my other direct question, but I’d like to read your response. Should everyone follow Luther’s example of deciding on their own what should be in the bible and what should not? If not, then why not?

With you in Christ,

Jeff


#14

Luther did not just take books out of the Bible that he disagreed with. That’s calumny. He agreed with many scholars of his day in questioning the authenticity and canonicity of certain books, and given his break with the authority structure of the Church he was freer to act on these theories than those scholars (such as Cardinal Cajetan) who remained Catholic. Furthermore, he did not take any books out of the Bible outright. He put them in a special category indicating that he didn’t think they had full status as inspired Scripture. He had reasonable scholarly reasons for his decision–it was not arbitrary. All the books he questioned had been questioned in the early Church.

Edwin


#15

[quote=Contarini]Luther did not just take books out of the Bible that he disagreed with. That’s calumny. He agreed with many scholars of his day in questioning the authenticity and canonicity of certain books, and given his break with the authority structure of the Church he was freer to act on these theories than those scholars (such as Cardinal Cajetan) who remained Catholic. Furthermore, he did not take any books out of the Bible outright. He put them in a special category indicating that he didn’t think they had full status as inspired Scripture. He had reasonable scholarly reasons for his decision–it was not arbitrary. All the books he questioned had been questioned in the early Church.Edwin
[/quote]

Hi Edwin,

Well said, concise, and accurate. Are you the “Edwin” that i’ve read about over on Armstrong’s site? If so, i’ve enjoyed your comments. If not, I still regard your paragraph above as irrefutable.Thank you!

Take Care,
James Swan


#16

[quote=Contarini]Luther did not just take books out of the Bible that he disagreed with. That’s calumny. He agreed with many scholars of his day in questioning the authenticity and canonicity of certain books
[/quote]

The Epistle of St. James was touch and go there for a century or so, wasn’t it? :smiley:

Back to Luther and the scholars. Have a look at the definition of heresy: Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same (emphasis mine). If these scholars were Catholic, then they were heretics if they doubted the inerrancy of the bible. And the immediate penalty for heresy is excommunication. So I would have to conclude that these scholars were either not Catholic to begin with, or were heretics. Either way, their opinion as to what was or was not inspired in the bible would be irrelevant to the Church, right?

and given his break with the authority structure of the Church he was freer to act on these theories than those scholars (such as Cardinal Cajetan) who remained Catholic.

I would not lump Cardinal Cajetan’s exegesis in with Luther’s wholesale reclassification of divinely inspired biblical texts as “of doubtful authenticity”. Also, rejection of the Truth doesn’t imply freedom to oppose the Truth. Why would Luther take the bible (compiled by the Catholic Church) and “tweak” it? To me, it seems disingenous to start with the Bible, a work of the Catholic Church, and then dismiss the Catholic Church. The Church was good enough to provide the Bible, but not good enough to provide the “correct” Bible after at least 300 years of reflection, investigation and prayer and another 1000 years of reflection, study and prayer? It would take Luther (with the scholars) less than one lifetime to correct the “errors” of the Catholic Church? Did Luther exhibit the Chirsitan virtue of humility? If so, I don’t see it.

Furthermore, he did not take any books out of the Bible outright. He put them in a special category indicating that he didn’t think they had full status as inspired Scripture. He had reasonable scholarly reasons for his decision–it was not arbitrary. All the books he questioned had been questioned in the early Church.

What is a book that does not have “full status” as inspired Scripture? The books were either inspired or not. The Church had already decided the point 1000 years earlier and reaffirmed the same thing at Trent.

I agree that Luther probably didn’t work in a vacuum, so I should modify my question. Should everyone follow Luther’s example of deciding on their own, with input from biblical scholars, what should be in the bible and what should not? If not, then why not?

Jeff


#17

Hi Jeff

[quote=JeffreyGerard]Back to Luther and the scholars. Have a look at the definition of heresy: Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same (emphasis mine). If these scholars were Catholic, then they were heretics if they doubted the inerrancy of the bible. And the immediate penalty for heresy is excommunication. So I would have to conclude that these scholars were either not Catholic to begin with, or were heretics. Either way, their opinion as to what was or was not inspired in the bible would be irrelevant to the Church, right?
[/quote]

Even if one were to grant the validity of the Roman Catholic Church declaring the contents of the canon, Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan formed their opinions and debated these issues previous to the council of Trent. The New Catholic Encyclopedia has honestly pointed out,

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”

[quote=JeffreyGerard]I would not lump Cardinal Cajetan’s exegesis in with Luther’s wholesale reclassification of divinely inspired biblical texts as “of doubtful authenticity”.
[/quote]

Why not? Cardinal Cajetan also questioned the authenticity of certain Biblical books. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out he questioned “the authorship of several epistles… Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia takes a stronger position on his “questioning”and says, “He expressed strong doubts about the literal meaning of Canticles and the Apocalypse; the authenticity of Mk 16:9-20 and Jn 8:1-11; and the authorship of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John, and Jude.” In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical. Cajetan said,

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

[quote=JeffreyGerard] Why would Luther take the bible (compiled by the Catholic Church) and “tweak” it?
[/quote]

It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. Luther expressed his thoughts on the canon in “prefaces” placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. These prefaces were not out of the ordinary. Luther was not engaging in any sort of outrageous scholarly behavior.Luther scholar Paul Althaus explains, “[Luther] allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon.” It is these “distinctions” that are often seen as removal. In these prefaces, Luther explained that he understood the Biblical books in an order based on how clearly “Christ the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone” was enunciated. He considered this to be the apostolic standard by which all was evaluated.

Jeff, I suggest you take a look at this when you get a minute:

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

Regards,
James Swan


#18

[quote=JeffreyGerard]The Epistle of St. James was touch and go there for a century or so, wasn’t it? :smiley:

Back to Luther and the scholars. Have a look at the definition of heresy: Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same (emphasis mine). If these scholars were Catholic, then they were heretics if they doubted the inerrancy of the bible. And the immediate penalty for heresy is excommunication. So I would have to conclude that these scholars were either not Catholic to begin with, or were heretics. Either way, their opinion as to what was or was not inspired in the bible would be irrelevant to the Church, right?

I would not lump Cardinal Cajetan’s exegesis in with Luther’s wholesale reclassification of divinely inspired biblical texts as “of doubtful authenticity”. Also, rejection of the Truth doesn’t imply freedom to oppose the Truth. Why would Luther take the bible (compiled by the Catholic Church) and “tweak” it? To me, it seems disingenous to start with the Bible, a work of the Catholic Church, and then dismiss the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

If one looks at what the NT says pastors should be like, and then at the pluralism, absenteeism, careerism, worldliness, and generally unpastorlike attitudes of too many bishops at the time, as well as at the ignorance, superstition, fetishism, Mariolatry, and downright paganism; not to mention the wars between supposedly Christian rulers - it’s a very understandable dismissal.

The Church could easily be healthy enough at first to witness to the Scriptures, and then become too decadent and rotten to deserve to be called Christian. Besides, for Luther, God was more important than man - and, than the Church. It is easy to argue that God, not the Church, is the true preserver of the Bible; and that the Church deserves no credit or honour for this, but was simply doing what God willed of her - until she went rotten: and needed reform. ##

The Church was good enough to provide the Bible, but not good enough to provide the “correct” Bible after at least 300 years of reflection, investigation and prayer and another 1000 years of reflection, study and prayer? It would take Luther (with the scholars) less than one lifetime to correct the “errors” of the Catholic Church? Did Luther exhibit the Chirsitan virtue of humility? If so, I don’t see it.

Luther’s defects are irrelevant, from one POV: for God does not need holiness in His servants. To pick on Luther’s faults misses the point that God chooses whom He Wills to choose: Saul of Tarsus, persecutor of Christians, was hardly the man whom most of us would think fit to be an Apostle - but if God equips His servants for the work He calls them to, then their faults and sins are irrelevant to their adequacy for that work; because their sufficiency is from God, not from themselves

What is a book that does not have “full status” as inspired Scripture? The books were either inspired or not. The Church had already decided the point 1000 years earlier and reaffirmed the same thing at Trent.

By being less theologically central to the message of the Bible.

Some books are more central to the Gospel of grace in Christ, than are others. For Luther, the letters to the Romans and to the Galatians were more central than the other Pauline letters - the Letter of James, though in the Bible, was far less central: was in fact comparatively peripheral, because Luther judged what said James by what Paul said; so he found James to have less of the Gospel in him. And he found the same to be true for Revelation & couple of others.

His criterion may be inadequate - but some books are less central to the Gospel than others. The principle, that not all are equally closely related to the Gospel, seems to be irrefutable: 2 Thessalonians has less to say about Christ than St. Mark’s Gospel; and, Proverbs less than parts of Isaiah. But all are canonical. ##

I agree that Luther probably didn’t work in a vacuum, so I should modify my question. Should everyone follow Luther’s example of deciding on their own, with input from biblical scholars, what should be in the bible and what should not? If not, then why not?

Jeff


#19

[quote=Gottle of Geer]## Some books are more central to the Gospel of grace in Christ, than are others. For Luther, the letters to the Romans and to the Galatians were more central than the other Pauline letters - the Letter of James, though in the Bible, was far less central: was in fact comparatively peripheral, because Luther judged what said James by what Paul said; so he found James to have less of the Gospel in him. And he found the same to be true for Revelation & couple of others.

His criterion may be inadequate - but some books are less central to the Gospel than others. The principle, that not all are equally closely related to the Gospel, seems to be irrefutable: 2 Thessalonians has less to say about Christ than St. Mark’s Gospel; and, Proverbs less than parts of Isaiah. But all are canonical. ##
[/quote]

Hi Gottle,

All were great points, but I wanted to highlight what you’ve said above.John Warwick Montgomery raises a similar point:

“…In fairness to Luther, is not this frank attitude just the recognition of what we all must admit, however high our view of scriptural inerrancy, namely that the biblical books do not all present the gospel with equal impact? Even the fundamentalist of fundamentalists distributes portions of the Gospel of John and not II Chronicles. Wesley was saved at Aldersgate listening to the reading of Luther’s Preface to Romans; it would not have surprised Luther — nor should it surprise us — that the effect was not produced by the reading of the Preface to Obadiah. To paraphrase George Orwell, all the Bible books are equal, but some are more equal than others. Moreover, the successive editions of Luther’s German Bible show the Reformer concerned that the general public not be led away from any portion of Scripture by his own personal opinions or prejudices.”

Regards,
James Swan


#20

[quote=TertiumQuid]Hi Edwin,

Well said, concise, and accurate. Are you the “Edwin” that i’ve read about over on Armstrong’s site? If so, i’ve enjoyed your comments. If not, I still regard your paragraph above as irrefutable.Thank you!

Take Care,
James Swan
[/quote]

Yes, I’m the same guy. I post rather infrequently on my blog stewedrabbit.blogspot.com

Edwin


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.