I have a question about one of my blog posts.

[In His Love]

https://catholicverve.wordpress.com/2016...estantism/

I'm being told that my "attack" on Martin Luther is full of "out of context quotes and misrepresentations." This is the only post I've made that has received mostly negative feedback. I'm not sure if it's because I'm going after the founder of Protestantism or because my article is not properly structured. What do you guys think? I feel like it's sound...I don't think it's an "attack" to directly quote him, nor do I think there is any proper "context" for calling Jesus an adulterer.

[ermy_law]

What are the criticisms, exactly?

Your quotes prove he was a heretic, which the Protestans see as his greatest asset since they do not want to believe what our holy faith teaches.

[In His Love]

What are the criticisms, exactly?

Your quotes prove he was a heretic, which the Protestans see as his greatest asset since they do not want to believe what our holy faith teaches.

These are the criticisms:

"While I appreciated your defense of Catholic teaching, your attack on Luther is filled with out-of-context quotes and misrepresentations. Even the introductory comment has factual errors. Not all who are loosely described as Protestant are connected to Luther. In fact, most are not."

"Perhaps it would be better to focus on what you appear to have done well: present Catholic teaching. Leave it to Lutherans to present Luther's , and their own.
When you take small snippets away from the context, for example, the sin boldly quote, you misrepresent the meaning. "

[Jeeter]

It seemed OK to me.  Perhaps consider re-posting in a slightly broader context.  Instead of just using the quote alone, use the quote, followed by a Lutheran explanation of the quote, then followed by why said explanation is wrong.


Have you considered typing in tongues to reach the Pentecostals?

[In His Love]

It seemed OK to me.  Perhaps consider re-posting in a slightly broader context.  Instead of just using the quote alone, use the quote, followed by a Lutheran explanation of the quote, then followed by why said explanation is wrong.


Have you considered typing in tongues to reach the Pentecostals?

I just wanted to make sure that the message was effective. The criticisms were from a Lutheran, so...I can understand why he would go to the "out of context" line. For me, with all due respect for his sincerity, that's always seemed like a weak response. Whether in or out of context, it is never okay to call Jesus an adulterer and fornicator. Period. Perhaps the "out of context" bit is an insulator keeping him from addressing Protestantism's issues.

LOL.  :LOL:

Idon'tknowifIcouldhandlethatah.

[In His Love]

Accidental double post.

[ermy_law]

Accidental double post.

This post has as much Thomism as Amoris Laetitia! 

Anyway, I think those criticisms are valid, honestly.

[In His Love]

I'm considering taking it down and focusing on my new article toward Protestants. I don't want to come across like I'm attacking the same group I want to reach.

[Jeeter]

I just wanted to make sure that the message was effective. The criticisms were from a Lutheran, so...I can understand why he would go to the "out of context" line. For me, with all due respect for his sincerity, that's always seemed like a weak response. Whether in or out of context, it is never okay to call Jesus an adulterer and fornicator. Period. Perhaps the "out of context" bit is an insulator keeping him from addressing Protestantism's issues.

you're absolutely right about it being wrong to say that about Jesus. That one I simply couldn't engage beyond, "Dude, you're wrong, and I'll pray for you." I was referring to the other comments; guess I should've clarified earlier.

[In His Love]

I trashed the article. I'm going to work on primarily answering Protestant questions by quoting Scripture. I don't think the other approach is going to be effective.