tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post189909797097229085..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Speculative Luther Citation TreeTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-64378249049832770202008-01-21T20:17:00.000+00:002008-01-21T20:17:00.000+00:00The point being that H was a Catholic convert (and...The point being that H was a Catholic convert (and apparently a "high profile" one).<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments!Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-73678044900478936282008-01-21T19:30:00.000+00:002008-01-21T19:30:00.000+00:00I beleive that The Dublin Review is a repeat of Wi...I beleive that The Dublin Review is a repeat of Wiseman's comments or a reference to them by Maynooth. I didn't want to be unseemingly redundant, but was merely highlighting the fact that people were quoting him. Honinghaus' work also was reviewed or referenced in a number of American Catholic publications during the 1830's-1840's, too. <BR/><BR/>An anglicized version of the quote appears in Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-66254595175020847092008-01-21T19:04:00.000+00:002008-01-21T19:04:00.000+00:00Dear Paul Hoffer,If you are counting noses, you ma...Dear Paul Hoffer,<BR/><BR/>If you are counting noses, you may want to consider this article, from the Dublin review:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=nlUJCl2dfrUC&pg=PA277" REL="nofollow">Höninghaus</A><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how or whether Höninghaus fits into the tree, as I haven't seen an example of his use of the quotation.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-25708975643932489232008-01-18T13:56:00.000+00:002008-01-18T13:56:00.000+00:00Armstrong wrote: "Nothing in this hypothesis that ...Armstrong wrote: "Nothing in this hypothesis that we are in the process of setting forth involves the notion that Luther ever rejected his own principle of sola Scriptura. He did not. Repeat: <B>he did not.</B>" (emphasis is Armstrong's)<BR/><BR/>Now, Armstrong is spinning off into new directions, quote-mining from other sources, and suggesting that literal translation was not the norm (obviouslyTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-48361442852724821782008-01-18T11:32:00.000+00:002008-01-18T11:32:00.000+00:00Grisar's tag is clearly incorrect, as even Armstro...<I>Grisar's tag is clearly incorrect, as even Armstrong seems to have admitted.</I><BR/><BR/>Last I recall, Mr. Armstrong stated I didn't understand Grisar, or something like that.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-19664706613183838592008-01-16T14:37:00.000+00:002008-01-16T14:37:00.000+00:00The English context has now been provided on the n...The English context has now been provided on the net, and is also available at Googlebooks.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-16591233170606645872008-01-16T14:11:00.000+00:002008-01-16T14:11:00.000+00:00Interestingly, Dave Armstrong has the following st...Interestingly, Dave Armstrong has the following statement in a post that is currently dated as though it were written in 2004 (and perhaps it was), the content attributed to "a.believer," which states: "<I>I was recently made aware of a long tradition of "anti-evangelical" authors who sought to poison the well against Luther and the other Reformers, with the intent of a priori closing peoples Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-63982054736185031692008-01-16T11:43:00.000+00:002008-01-16T11:43:00.000+00:00It really should go without saying, but Cochlaeus ...It really should go without saying, but Cochlaeus does not need a Latin original to work from. He was more than capable of reading Luther in German and writing his own book in Latin. Recall, Cochlaeus was a very determined man- even running his own printing press, if I recall, by which to attack Luther.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-35278679145646225702008-01-16T02:57:00.000+00:002008-01-16T02:57:00.000+00:00Dave,No problem.Page 140 (about 5-10 lines from th...Dave,<BR/>No problem.<BR/>Page 140 (about 5-10 lines from the bottom of the page) (<A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=PhYXAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA140&dq=%22diverse+interpretations+of+scripture%22#PPA140,M1" REL="nofollow">link</A>)<BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-4285955973223480402008-01-16T01:28:00.000+00:002008-01-16T01:28:00.000+00:00Any Catholic writer who ever answered Whitaker's c...<I>Any Catholic writer who ever answered Whitaker's charge that the quotation was a spurius Cochlaean invention.</I><BR/><BR/>I looked for this charge but couldn't find it in Whitaker. Could you direct me to the appropriate URL on Google Book Search? Thanks.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.com