{"id":15151,"date":"2018-01-09T14:06:59","date_gmt":"2018-01-09T18:06:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=15151"},"modified":"2018-01-10T11:30:11","modified_gmt":"2018-01-10T15:30:11","slug":"dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html","title":{"rendered":"Dialogue on Luther’s “Getting to a Gracious God”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
\"Job2\"<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Martin Luther struggled with accepting God\u2019s grace, his entire life.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u201cCPA\u201d (a Lutheran historian) wrote a piece:<\/span>\u00a0\u201cHow Do I Get a Gracious God?\u201d in the Intertestamental Era<\/a> (5-29-06). I also replied to comments of his in discussion, in my paper,\u00a0<\/span>Luther\u2019s Projection of His Depression & Crises Onto St. Paul<\/a>.\u00a0Presently, I wish to reply to some of the biblical texts that CPA sets forth in order to show that Martin Luther\u2019s own spiritual experience is normative, or, at any rate, not unusual or eccentric or suggestive of overscrupulosity, etc.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
CPA\u2019s words will be in<\/span>\u00a0blue<\/span>, and Martin Luther\u2019s in<\/span>\u00a0green<\/span>.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
* * * * *<\/div>\n

[Some think] that Luther\u2019s agonizing search for a gracious God was a personal eccentricity, or perhaps a sickness of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but in any case not a question that would have made sense to the Apostle Paul from whom Luther sought to find the solution to his great question. Well, this is very odd . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

CPA then proceeded to make an elaborate analogical argument from the deuterocanonical book 2 Esdras, claiming that it is<\/span>\u00a0\u201cone of the great pieces of doubt and despair of God\u2019s justice and mercy.\u201d Then he tried to argue that Luther\u2019s agonies and serious crises of faith were restricted primarily to his early years. But I produced three major Luther biographers (Oberman, Bainton, and Steinmetz) asserting quite the contrary. Bainton wrote, concerning these recurring dreadful episodes of depression: \u201cHis whole life was a struggle against them, a fight for faith.\u201d But CPA goes beyond even that. He contends that the normative (or at least not unusual) situation in the Bible itself and the history of the Jews is this tormented crisis of faith in God\u2019s graciousness and mercy:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Of course, one could claim that none of these figures are mature Catholics nourished with the fullness of Catholic doctrine. But remember, the argument is, \u201cLuther\u2019s agony has nothing in common psychologically with Paul\u2019s.\u201d But the writings of Esdras form a remarkable middle term between the two, making a contemporary and historically plausible explanation of the temptations to doubt and blasphemy that laid the biographical background of Paul\u2019s theology, just as it lay behind Luther\u2019s.<\/span><\/p>\n

CPA dramatically concludes:<\/span><\/p>\n

It is a bit absurd really, to pretend that contemplation of the injustice God seems to allow in the world, the waywardness of our hearts, and the doubtful destiny of the vast majority of mankind could only bring the occasional neurotic close to despair, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This section makes it clear that CPA is actually grappling with a\u00a0very different question<\/em>\u00a0than was Luther in his spiritual crises, which is why it really doesn\u2019t directly address those things. CPA wants to look at the well-known themes of Job and Ecclesiastes: men of conscience wrestling with the problem of evil and the tragedy of so many human beings ending up in hell, and\/or being unconcerned about spiritual things and committing sin with no seemingly significant temporal consequences.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

No one disputes that. I myself have always thought \u2014 both as a Protestant apologist and as a Catholic \u2014 that the problem of evil is the most serious, substantive objection to Christianity. I approach it (in trying to offer some decent Christian explanations) with the utmost seriousness.<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s an excellent, most worthy topic to explore, and I commend CPA for doing so, but it doesn\u2019t support the claim that Luther\u2019s experience was a parallel to the Apostle Paul\u2019s, and something common to many many Christians. How could it? It\u2019s a different subject altogether. CPA cites Luther\u2019s words in his 1525 book,\u00a0The Bondage of the Will<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Doubtless it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natural reason, that God, Who is proclaimed as being full of mercy and goodness, and so on, should of His own mere will abandon, harden, and damn men, as though he delighted in the sins and great eternal torments of such wretches. It seems an iniquitous, cruel, intolerable thought to think of God; and it is this that has been a stumbling block to so many great men down the ages. And who would not stumble at it? I have stumbled at it myself more than once, down to the deepest pit of despair, so that I wish I had never been made a man.<\/span>\u00a0(p. 217)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sure, this would cause anyone to despair, because it is a false doctrine in the first place! Double predestination is not Catholic teaching (or Orthodox). Even the Lutherans themselves rejected it when they formulated their doctrines in the Book of Concord some 50 years later (as have the great majority of Protestants for 500 years). So Luther despairing over a false doctrine that makes men the author of evil and a Being Who creates men solely to be damned and tormented forever in eternity, without ultimate reference to their own rebellion and cause for their own demise, has little to do with anything other than the illogical, wrongheaded thoughts of heresy and falsehood. That\u2019s neither here nor there.<\/span><\/p>\n

If the object is to bring Luther closer to Paul and normative Christianity, this is not the way to do it. But in any event, the questions alluded to in the title: that troubled Luther so throughout his life, and which CPA purports to answer, are quite different:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cHow do I get a gracious God?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cDoes grace-enabled synergism necessarily cause anxiety and terror?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Heiko Oberman recounts how Luther wrote, after struggling nearly a month in perhaps his worst crisis, in 1527:\u00a0\u201cI almost lost Christ completely, driven about on the waves and storms of despair and blasphemy against God.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Oberman continued: \u201cIn October [now three months out of the nine this crisis would last] he was still haunted by anguish and urgently requested Melanchthon to remember him in his prayers of intercession since he himself was a\u00a0\u2018miserable worm,\u2019<\/span>\u00a0plagued by the spirit of sadness . . . Luther was looking for the gracious God . . .\u201d [sources in my<\/span> paper linked above<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Exactly. This isn\u2019t essentially about Luther struggling with the fact that people are damned, or that a lot of them may very well be, and trying to square this with a gracious God. This is about Luther being unable to accept God\u2019s grace for\u00a0himself\u00a0and feeling himself to be in the\u00a0\u201cdepths of Hell,\u201d<\/span>\u00a0as he put it. Thus Bainton described Luther\u2019s crises as \u201cThe content of the depression was always the same, the loss of faith that God is good and that he is good to\u00a0me<\/em>.\u201d Note how the personal element was\u00a0essential\u00a0to the crisis (the italics were his own, not mine).\u00a0[sources for Oberman and Bainton in my\u00a0paper linked above<\/a>]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

David Steinmetz concurs. He wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Throughout his life Luther suffered from periods of depression and acute anxiety. He referred to these episodes as\u00a0Anfechtungen<\/em>, or \u201cspiritual trials.\u201d<\/span> . . . His terror was all too specific. It was an unnerving and enervating fear that God had turned his back on him once and for all, had repudiated his repentance and prayers, and had abandoned him to suffer the pains of hell. Luther felt alone in the universe, battered by the demands of God\u2019s law and beyond the reach of the gospel. He doubted his own faith, his own mission, and the goodness of God \u2014 doubts which, because they verged on blasphemy, drove him deeper and deeper into the Slough of Despond. Election ceased to be a doctrine of comfort and became a sentence of death . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

Philip Melanchthon, Luther\u2019s co-worker and friend for more than twenty five years, offers his own eyewitness account of Luther\u2019s\u00a0Anfechtungen<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n

On those frequent occasions when he was thinking especially about the wrath of God or about extraordinary instances of retribution, such violent terrors afflicted him that he almost died . . .<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As Melanchthon\u2019s testimony makes plain, Luther\u2019s conversion to a Reformation understanding of the gospel did not put an end to his\u00a0Anfechtungen<\/em>. Even after the great shift in his theological outlook, Luther continued to suffer periods of severe spiritual anxiety. Probably the doubt which haunted the older Luther most tenaciously was the fear that he was, after all, in error (just as his enemies alleged), and that he had misled thousands of innocent Christians who ought to have been left undisturbed in their traditional piety . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

If the older Luther was particularly tormented with doubts about his vocation, the younger Luther\u2019s anxieties centered on the confessional . . .\u00a0(Luther in Context<\/em>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2nd edition, 2002, pp. 1-2)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is what Catholics deny is the case for St. Paul, or (apart from the usual tragedies and disappointments in life that throw us for a loop for a time) for the ordinary Christian, following and trusting God. Quite the opposite of a robust faith and trust in God\u2019s mercy, that one would assume is the fruit of the Holy Spirit and the sacraments, it shows a radical\u00a0lack\u00a0of same. I would maintain that the Old Testament period does not show us the norm for the Christian life because only a few people were indwelt by the Holy Spirit in those days.<\/span><\/p>\n

This makes an entire difference. I need not recount the manifold blessings of Pentecost: Catholics and Lutherans and all other Christians agree that the Holy Spirit within us causes a massive change in outlook and ability to follow God. So we may overlook the \u201cevidence\u201d of 2 Esdras on those grounds. What else does CPA offer by way of biblical data that Christian folks supposedly routinely struggle with their trust in a gracious God the way Luther did (what he calls\u00a0<\/span>\u201cfairly obvious counter-examples in the New Testament\u201d<\/span>)?:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Romans 9:3<\/strong> I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

How in the world does this show some difficulty \u201cgetting [finding] a gracious God?\u201d Again, it has nothing to do with that. This is Paul simply showing his extraordinary love for his kinsmen, the Jews. I think this verse offers somewhat of a parallel between Paul\u2019s love and that of Jesus, since our Lord also had \u201cbecome a curse\u201d for the sake of the salvation of mankind (Gal 3:13-14; cf. Rom 8:3). It\u2019s the Jewish language of sacrifice on behalf of others: well familiar because of the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant.<\/span><\/p>\n

But how does this indicate that Paul struggled with appropriating to himself God\u2019s love, mercy, and graciousness? It doesn\u2019t support such a notion in the least. Paul had just written Romans 8, after all: one of the most glorious, hopeful chapters in the entire Bible (and there were no chapter divisions originally). He was quite sure of God\u2019s graciousness\u00a0there<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n

1) \u201cThere is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.\u201d (8:1; RSV)<\/span><\/p>\n

2) \u201cFor the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.\u201d (1:2)<\/span><\/p>\n

3) Christians walk \u201caccording to the Spirit.\u201d (8:4)<\/span><\/p>\n

4) Christians \u201cset their minds on the things of the Spirit.\u201d (8:5)<\/span><\/p>\n

5) This brings \u201clife and peace\u201d (8:6)<\/span><\/p>\n

6) We Christians all have the Holy Spirit inside of us (8:9-11)<\/span><\/p>\n

7) This makes our spirits \u201calive because of righteousness.\u201d (8:10)<\/span><\/p>\n

8) This makes us \u201csons of God.\u201d (8:14-17)<\/span><\/p>\n

9) This gives us hope and patience (8:24-25)<\/span><\/p>\n

10) And all things work for good (8:28)<\/span><\/p>\n

11) And this brings justification to us (8:30, 33)<\/span><\/p>\n

12) \u201cWho shall separate us from the love of Christ?\u201d (8:35) Paul then lists seven horrible things which cannot do this, including martyrdom, but \u201cin all these things we are more than conquerors\u201d (8:37)<\/span><\/p>\n

13) He concludes that there isn\u2019t \u201canything . . . in all creation\u201d that \u201cwill be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.\u201d (8:39)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

All this, yet Paul is somehow analogous to Luther, struggling to figure out that God loves him (and all men) and is merciful and gracious? I don\u2019t get it. Perhaps CPA can enlighten us as to the mysterious process of his reasoning here. Then he appeals to the classic Protestant proof text of Romans 7:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Romans 7:21-24<\/strong> I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man, but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Once again: how does this prove in the least that Paul\u00a0doubts God\u2019s graciousness\u00a0<\/em>and willingness to save? I don\u2019t see it. Perhaps I\u2019m missing something crucial. Paul teaches that the man under the law struggling with concupiscence is destined to fail. But of course this merely proves my point that the Holy Spirit makes an entire difference (precisely the topic of his\u00a0next<\/em> chapter, which resolves the rhetorical dilemma he has created in Romans 7). But he hints at the solution even in Romans 7 itself. Protestants love to cite the above verses, as proof of ongoing \u201ctotal depravity\u201d or the ultimate futility of sanctification in this life (I used to do it myself), but (as usual) they radically neglect context, not only that of the next chapter but in this chapter, too.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul argues that when we were \u201cliving in the flesh,\u201d sin and death reigned over us, and that the law actually in some sense \u201caroused\u201d this (7:5). Of course; all agree on that. But now (i.e., Christians in the age of grace and pentecost) \u201cserve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.\u201d (7:6). So Paul gives a sneak preview of Romans 8. He goes on to argue that the law was not, indeed, a bad thing (7:7, 12). But the law (given human propensity to sin and temptation) offers \u201copportunity\u201d for the sinner to enter into more sin (7:8-11, 13-14). In the carnal flesh dwells no good thing, and we all struggle with it, often hypocritically, with our wills often being weak (7:15-25).<\/span><\/p>\n

But the entire solution is found in Romans 8. It\u2019s interesting that Paul includes suffering \u2014 even\u00a0profound<\/em>\u00a0suffering \u2014 as part of the \u201csolution\u201d; actually making it an outright\u00a0condition<\/em>\u00a0for being \u201cheirs with Christ, provided we\u00a0suffer<\/em><\/strong> with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.\u201d (8:17) The sufferings of Christ become our own in some mysterious sense, and we are to identify with our Lord\u2019s suffering . This is a rather common motif in Paul (cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7; 4:10, 11:23-30; Gal 2:20, 6:17; Phil 3:10; and above all, Col 1:24), yet one scarcely dealt with or recognized by Protestants at all.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is plenty of suffering to be had, yet it is a suffering without despair of God\u2019s mercy and graciousness. That forms no part of it at all. Luther\u2019s experience was not Paul\u2019s. This can\u2019t be stressed highly enough. Nor can Pauline soteriology be constructed out of the whole cloth of Luther\u2019s non-typical experience of recurrent existential despair and angst. Not everyone is like him. If he had recognized that himself, the history of theology for the last 500 years may have been vastly different.<\/span><\/p>\n

CPA throws in another passage from Romans 8, not seeming to realize that the context entirely disposes of his claim (as explained above):<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Romans 8:22-23<\/strong> For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Does this teach that we ought to despair of God\u2019s mercy, as if that is a usual, expected occurrence of the Christian life? Nope. Not a word about that . . . It\u2019s the very first rule of writing: if you are gonna write a paper, give it a title which accurately reflects the contents. CPA calls his,\u00a0\u201cHow Do I Get a Gracious God?\u201d in the Intertestamental Era<\/em>. The opening paragraph is also key to setting the theme and the \u201cagenda\u201d of a paper. CPA uses his to expressly deny that<\/span>\u00a0\u201cLuther\u2019s agonizing search for a gracious God was a personal eccentricity, or perhaps a sickness of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Okay. So presumably the rest of the paper will be devoted to establishing his thesis, which denies the Catholic disavowal of the standard Protestant \u201cLuther and Paul are two peas of a pod\u201d mindset, right? Wrong! He does no such thing, because \u2014 as I think I\u2019ve shown \u2014 he switches the topic and never gets back to the presumed subject of his title and first paragraph. Perhaps he was unaware of this (I\u2019m not accusing him of obfuscation or cheap lawyer\u2019s tricks), but in any case, he didn\u2019t prove his ostensible original thesis (or counter-thesis) in the least.<\/span><\/p>\n

He tries a few more proof texts. These can be easily disposed with as non sequiturs<\/em> regarding the actual topic, too:<\/span><\/p>\n

Then said one unto him, \u2018Lord, are there few that be saved?\u2019 And he said unto them, \u2018Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Many are lost; few are saved. This should certainly motivate one to get out and share the Christian gospel of salvation with folks. It\u2019s a great reason for what I do, and what motivates me, as a Catholic apologist and evangelist, but what does it have to do with God supposedly being unmerciful, or our difficulty in recognizing this truth? Nothing.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cNot every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ditto. This adds the additional element of warning about the hypocrisy of even good works, done for the wrong reason, or in service of the wrong master. What is in this passage about wrestling with mixed feelings about God\u2019s mercifulness? Zilch, zero, nada, nuthin\u2019 . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, \u201cWho then can be saved?\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sure; they were amazed at the seeming difficulty of salvation, as they well should have been. What CPA doesn\u2019t seem to realize, however, is that these passages come from the disciples before Pentecost. They were not yet filled with the Holy Spirit, which easily accounts for their almost totally dumbfounded incomprehension of most of what our Lord Jesus taught. They didn\u2019t understand the cross and His sacrificial, redemptive death, even though He explained it to them. He told them everything that was going to happen, but not one seemed to have grasped it until after the Resurrection (another thing they seemed to have no idea would happen, even though they had been told). They scarcely understood the Eucharist (John 6). Peter was such a wimp that he denied Jesus. They were so prideful and self-centered that they actually argued with each other to see who was the \u201cgreatest.\u201d Etc., etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

Once the Spirit fell upon them, however, it was very different, and we see Peter delivering a fiery, confident sermon (Acts 2) and going out, starting to turn their world upside down. So citing their questions to Jesus before all that happened has little to do with a Spirit-filled, educated Christian in our time. It\u2019s as if CPA thinks the addition of the Holy Spirit living inside Christians is irrelevant to the larger question of trust in God, faith, and personal relationship with God. The disciples thus had a\u00a0big<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0excuse. What was\u00a0Luther<\/em>\u2018s, though? I think it is quite charitable (as I wrote before) to attribute his severe depressions and extreme overscrupulosity to some recognizable psychological disorder (which means it was \u2014 in all likelihood \u2014 strictly\u00a0chemical\u00a0<\/em>and involuntary in nature).<\/span><\/p>\n

When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus\u2019 knees, saying, \u201cDepart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That tells a great deal about Peter, but not anything about God, or (more to the point) what Peter thought of God as concerns His mercy or communication of it to mankind, or lack thereof.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now if my friend CPA would actually\u00a0interact with the argument\u00a0about the bogus Luther-Paul soteriological (and psychological) equation (rather than digress into the very different topic of Job-like and Ecclesiastes-type existential angst and troubled consciences over the fate of much of mankind), I would be highly interested to see that. I think it is an important \u201chistorical theology\u201d topic that Protestants need to directly confront.<\/span><\/p>\n

But CPA was still going in his own direction, in his follow-up paper,<\/span>\u00a0Why the Pontificator and I Don\u2019t Agree What the Issue Is<\/a>. There he writes:<\/span><\/p>\n

But let me try to analyze why we aren\u2019t on the same page. The main reason, I think, is that we use different\u00a0loci\u00a0<\/em>to analyze Luther\u2019s theology and especially his\u00a0anfechtung<\/em>\u00a0(roughly \u201ctemptation\u201d). For me, the place to go to for an understanding of the role of\u00a0anfecthtung\u00a0<\/em>in Luther\u2019s theology is public writings like the\u00a0Bondage of the Will<\/em>, which contains several discussions of the temptation to hate God and reject Him. (His commentaries on Romans contains similar passages).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The temptation to \u201chate\u201d God and \u201creject\u201d Him are entirely different things from questioning whether God is merciful to one. The first is a problem in God Himself: Luther creates a \u201cgod\u201d who creates people in order to damn them. This is heresy and all should rightly be horrified; so Luther was. But the fault lies in the\u00a0premise<\/em>: whether God has revealed that he would actually do these horrible things that Luther claims. The second thing has to do with a deficiency in the one experiencing it: it is felt that God is not merciful or gracious, which is a falsehood, so that the origin must derive from the sinful, fallible person, not with God.\u00a0<\/span>Therefore, the two topics are as different as night and day; creatures and the Creator; God\u2019s holiness and love, and our sinfulness and temptations to hate.<\/span><\/p>\n

Secondly, CPA seems to exhibit a certain psychological (even philosophical) naivete in not recognizing that one\u2019s personal life, experience, psyche, temperament, etc. have a great deal to do with one\u2019s theology. He wants to ground Luther\u2019s experience in the context or framework of his theology. Catholics (in this instance) want to ground Luther\u2019s theology in part in the framework of his experiences. As the theology affects the experience and forms an interpretive grid, so the experience affects the theology. Both things are equally valid and relevant. One can\u2019t state one and discount the other. It\u2019s a symbiotic or dynamic relationship, not a one-way situation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thirdly, since Luther wants to condemn the religion of Catholicism to a great extent, and medieval piety, for his own unpleasant, abnormal, non-normative experiences in confession and \u201cfully living the monk\u2019s life\u201d and so forth, it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to refute such a ludicrous claim with the counter-argument that Luther\u2019s peculiar psychological difficulties are much more likely to have been the cause of his problems than Catholic piety, spirituality and soteriology.<\/span><\/p>\n

This difference in starting point has an important influence on our conclusions. In his published works, Luther\u2019s temptations are presented in their theological context, as things that flow out of his right or wrong view of God and man. His temptations thus appear as personal versions of general theological dilemmas, such as the theodicy question. As I have tried to show (if you\u2019re interested you can follow the links in my original post), Luther\u2019s intense thoughts on this question, as seen in his published works such as\u00a0Bondage of the Will<\/em>, show parallels with those in, for example, Harriet Beecher Stowe and the apocryphal Jewish writing 2 Esdras. Common themes include the injustice of the world in which the wicked flourish and the innocent are tormented, the fact that we are born with ignorance, lusts, and hatreds that so often damn us, and these burdens weigh so much heavier on some than others, the contrast of happy animals with miserable man whose superior gifts are not a gift but a curse because virtually all misuse it, the agony of having no way to intercede for one\u2019s loved ones : these are all common themes in this \u201ctemptation\u201d to curse God and die.<\/span><\/p>\n

These are interesting observations, but they simply do not explain Luther\u2019s recurring psychological-spiritual struggles, as described by his leading biographers. Nor do they prove one whit that St. Paul came from the same general perspective.<\/span><\/p>\n

Reflections of many of these same themes can be found in the writings of Paul. (I forbear to cite Job and the Psalms.)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t see it. CPA could have provided some references. The ones he gave before (Romans 7-9) were all shown to not prove what he thought they proved, in my humble opinion. I don\u2019t deny that Job and Psalms (and Ecclesiastes) have these themes in abundance. I see no evidence that Paul suffered as Luther did. Paul (quite arguably) went through far more than Luther, yet he maintained his joy and peace, unlike Luther, who was, by his own report, a tormented, torn individual. That looks like it is in some sense God\u2019s will, too (some people are that way and seem to be unable to overcome it). A lot of this flows simply from different temperaments and life experiences. But that is far different from the claim that Luther\u2019s experience is widespread, normative (i.e., for devout, observant Christians), and similar to the Apostle Paul\u2019s (let alone having some serious implications for true soteriology or theology proper). I vehemently deny all four things.<\/span><\/p>\n

The problem with this focus on autobiography is that, of course, we have no way of knowing if Paul or any other figure of the time was similarly introspective. None of them have left us anything like Luther\u2019s\u00a0Tabletalk<\/em>. What was Paul like as a Rabbinic Jew? Did he obsessively wash his hands? Was he morbidly afraid of contact with Gentiles? Who knows? After all, we don\u2019t even know what his \u201cthorn in the flesh\u201d was. As a result, we are free to imagine Paul or the early Christians as being entirely free from all of the personal peculiarities we find in all the people around us, simply because there was no genre for a \u201cwarts and all\u201d biography in the Judeo-Christian world of the time.<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s true that we know relatively little about Paul, personally, yet we can deduce a fair amount of information from his writings. But then, by the same token, how can Luther deign to claim that his experience was highly similar to Paul\u2019s, if we know too little about Paul to even form a general picture of his personality and personal struggles? It seems to me that one would have to either deny the similarity (as I do) or concede that there is too little data to make an educated guess. Yet CPA claims that Paul writes about<\/span>\u00a0\u201cmany of these same themes.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>So what gives?<\/span><\/p>\n

. . . it seems to me to be far fairer and more likely to produce enlightenment if we compare like with like: Paul\u2019s writings about divine justice in the damnation of those we love in Romans, with that in (for example)\u00a0Bondage of the Will\u00a0or 2 Esdras, rather than comparing the apple of Paul\u2019s theological writings with the orange of Luther\u2019s autobiographical comments at the dinner table.<\/span><\/p>\n

I agree. This is exactly why I object to Luther projecting his\u00a0personal experience<\/em>\u00a0onto Paul\u2019s theology.\u00a0Now<\/em>\u00a0we\u2019re getting somewhere! Luther\u2019s rather unique experiences and psyche not only have nothing to do with Paul\u2019s theology, they don\u2019t even have much similarity with what we know about Paul\u2019s own personality, existential struggles, etc. So one thing is apples and oranges; the other is Macintosh apples and Golden Delicious apples (difference of topic in one case and of type in the other). But Paul did not struggle with the graciousness of God. If someone thinks he did, I\u2019d like to see the evidence for such an assertion (preferably analyzed with incorporation of theological and textual context this time).<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t blame the catalogue of \u201ctemptation\u201d-inducing thoughts I presented above on the Catholic church, on Judaism, on double predestination or any other culturally\/theologically contingent phenomenon.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yes,\u00a0you\u00a0<\/em>may not do that, but\u00a0Luther\u00a0<\/em>did, which is precisely the point. We as Catholics and myself as an apologist have to deal with the historical-theological fruit that this man brought about. One aspect of that is this business that he was some kind of preeminent interpreter of Paul and exemplar in his own life of Paul\u2019s experience. This is sheer nonsense. But since it was massively projected onto soteriological thought (theology of salvation) in Protestant circles, we deal with it today as an ongoing issue.<\/span><\/p>\n

You are simply using your head and thinking interesting speculations. But we have to overcome the foolish notion that Pauline theology is exclusively Protestant\/Lutheran theology, as if you guys have a lock on understanding all those things. To a large extent, it has become an example of assuming that which you are trying to prove (circular argument). That\u2019s why N.T. Wright is so valuable today because he cuts through the centuries of encrusted Protestant pseudo-tradition in this area and provides (from within a Protestant paradigm) a much-needed fresh analysis: examining the roots and premises for a change.<\/span><\/p>\n

I blame them on the\u00a0facts of life that anyone can see around them. One can eliminate such thoughts only by eliminating injustice, unbelief, and immorality in the world, or else by abandoning belief in a just and good Creator who orders all things and is holy and condemns sin. (Let me just state, as I have a number of times, I don\u2019t believe free will solves the issue at all. Uriel\u2019s comfort is\u00a0no comfort\u00a0to those who mourn.)<\/span><\/p>\n

This gets back to the confusion of category and topic-switching that I addressed above. This was not the central concern of Luther\u2019s depressions, as described by reputable biographers, and in his own letters.<\/span><\/p>\n

But if one believes in one\u2019s gut the potential reality and danger of hell for the whole world that scoffs at Christ, then\u00a0anfechtung\u00a0will come.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, but\u00a0not in Luther\u2019s personal\/psychological sense<\/em>. This is the crux of the matter. Struggling with the problem of evil (which is essentially what the above boils down to) is fundamentally different from questioning whether God is gracious and merciful. In fact, it is the literal opposite, because the problem of evil only comes by the assumption of a\u00a0good God<\/em>\u00a0from the outset. One assumes that and then struggles to understand and explain evil, hell, etc. It\u2019s precisely\u00a0because<\/em>\u00a0God is good and merciful that these thorny philosophical\/emotional problems arise. Luther\u2019s\u00a0anfechtung<\/em>\u00a0are the precise opposite: he questions whether God is merciful, and particularly to\u00a0him<\/em>. Then he struggles with it regarding the double predestination issue because that \u201cgod\u201d is not the biblical, real one, who extends grace and the invitation to salvation to everyone, not only some pre-selected ones.<\/span><\/p>\n

To paraphrase a famous movie about baseball and dead players coming back to life: \u201cif you build it [false theology] it [anfechtung<\/em>] will come.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

. . . pretty much all believers in a good, just, and holy Creator God will feel that way if they are sensitive to the weight of sin and suffering in the world, what do we do about it? What is the proper theological response?<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s right, but it (the Job \/ Ecclesiastes \/ problem of evil dilemma and ultimate mystery) is not the topic at hand, and doesn\u2019t address why Luther projected his experience onto Paul\u2019s theology, and why many Protestants adopted that fallacy uncritically, lock, stock, and barrel and can\u2019t seem to be able to see out of the theological fish-tank that they swim in and comprehend any other viewpoint. Thank God that N.T. Wright could do that. So of course he is tarred and feathered by all the reactionaries out there whose toes are stepped on when someone dares to think outside the box.<\/span><\/p>\n

***<\/span><\/p>\n

(originally from 6-4-06; slight editing on 1-9-18)<\/span><\/p>\n

Photo credit:<\/strong> The Patient Job<\/em>, by Gerard Seghers (1591-1651)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

***<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Martin Luther struggled with accepting God\u2019s grace, his entire life. \u00a0 \u201cCPA\u201d (a Lutheran historian) wrote a piece:\u00a0\u201cHow Do I Get a Gracious God?\u201d in the Intertestamental Era (5-29-06). I also replied to comments of his in discussion, in my paper,\u00a0Luther\u2019s Projection of His Depression & Crises Onto St. Paul.\u00a0Presently, I wish to reply to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":15154,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,50],"tags":[151,1987,3675,1482,1985,1986,145,238,2342,3672,3673,244,1471,229,1650,1123,4699,2344,3674,488,2097,2096,2348,146,2341,243,1207],"class_list":["post-15151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-martin-luther","category-salvation-justification","tag-apostasy","tag-appropriation-of-grace","tag-assurance-of-salvation","tag-catholic-soteriology","tag-co-laborers-with-god","tag-cooperation-with-gods-grace","tag-eternal-security","tag-faith","tag-faith-alone","tag-falling-from-grace","tag-falling-from-salvation","tag-grace","tag-grace-alone","tag-heaven","tag-hope","tag-imputed-justification","tag-instant-salvation","tag-justification","tag-losing-ones-salvation","tag-luther","tag-luther-salvation","tag-luthers-soteriology","tag-martin-luther","tag-perseverance-of-the-saints","tag-salvation","tag-soteriology-2","tag-synergy"],"yoast_head":"\nDialogue on Luther's "Getting to a Gracious God"<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Interesting dialogue with a Lutheran church historian (LCMS) about Luther's struggles in accepting a gracious God, & how this compares with St. Paul.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dialogue on Luther's "Getting to a Gracious God"\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Interesting dialogue with a Lutheran church historian (LCMS) about Luther's struggles in accepting a gracious God, & how this compares with St. Paul.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-01-09T18:06:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-10T15:30:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/01\/Job2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"505\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html\",\"name\":\"Dialogue on Luther's \\\"Getting to a Gracious God\\\"\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-01-09T18:06:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-10T15:30:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Interesting dialogue with a Lutheran church historian (LCMS) about Luther's struggles in accepting a gracious God, & how this compares with St. Paul.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dialogue on Luther’s “Getting to a Gracious God”\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dialogue on Luther's \"Getting to a Gracious God\"","description":"Interesting dialogue with a Lutheran church historian (LCMS) about Luther's struggles in accepting a gracious God, & how this compares with St. Paul.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dialogue on Luther's \"Getting to a Gracious God\"","og_description":"Interesting dialogue with a Lutheran church historian (LCMS) about Luther's struggles in accepting a gracious God, & how this compares with St. Paul.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2018-01-09T18:06:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-10T15:30:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":505,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/01\/Job2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html","name":"Dialogue on Luther's \"Getting to a Gracious God\"","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-01-09T18:06:59+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-10T15:30:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Interesting dialogue with a Lutheran church historian (LCMS) about Luther's struggles in accepting a gracious God, & how this compares with St. Paul.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/01\/dialogue-luthers-getting-gracious-god.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dialogue on Luther’s “Getting to a Gracious God”"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15151","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15151\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15154"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}