{"id":237,"date":"2013-02-18T12:22:00","date_gmt":"2013-02-18T16:22:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-the-immaculate-conception-with-lutheran-chuck-wiese.html"},"modified":"2026-06-06T00:26:05","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T04:26:05","slug":"dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html","title":{"rendered":"Dialogue with a Lutheran on the Immaculate Conception"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
\"MadonnaRaphael2\"<\/a><\/div>\n
\n

The Small Cowper Madonna<\/em> (c. 1505), by Raphael (1483-1520)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
(2-18-13)<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Chuck Wiese (Lutheran) wrote an article on his blog (The Lamb on the Altar<\/i><\/a>), entitled, \u201cDave Armstrong\u2019s Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception\u201d<\/a> (17 February 2013). I\u00a0 shall cite it in its entirety below and reply to it, point-by-point. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
* * * * *<\/div>\n

The Roman church teaches that when Mary was conceived in the womb she was kept free from original sin and filled with sanctifying grace. It wasn\u2019t until 1854 that this doctrine became an official teaching of the Roman church.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It is never sufficient to simply cite a \u201clate date\u201d and leave it at that. It\u2019s great polemics and propaganda, but lousy historical argumentation. First of all, it isn\u2019t as if the doctrine came out of thin air in 1854. It was believed, by and large, for many centuries. 1854 simply made it dogma at the very highest levels: de fide<\/i> or ex cathedra<\/i> (as the Catholic Church has many levels of authority of dogmas).<\/p>\n

What must be determined is if doctrines that are defined at much later dates are consistent developments<\/i> or truly innovative novelties<\/i>, that have no legitimate historical precursors. The Immaculate Conception is the former, and is a straightforward development of the belief in the sinlessness of Mary, that was <\/i>the consensus of the Church fathers.<\/p>\n

To find doctrinal novelties and corruptions one must go to folks like the so-called \u201creformers\u201d: people like Martin Luther, who introduced (as I have documented) at least 50 novel doctrines in his treatises of 1520, even before he was excommunicated.\u00a0 One can also point to sola Scriptura<\/i>: the Protestant rule of faith, that was not taught by the Church fathers at all, as I have demonstrated numerous times. Nor can it be proven at all from Scripture. I\u2019ve written two books about that<\/i>. St. Augustine\u2019s teachings were Catholic<\/i>, not proto-Protestant. I devoted an entire book to documenting that fact, too.<\/p>\n

This teaching was not established by appealing to the Scriptures but rather by appealing to \u201cimplicit\u201d teachings in the church fathers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To some extent that is true, but biblical arguments were also utilized, as in all Catholic argumentation in favor of particular doctrines. It was largely an argument from tradition, but then, this is perfectly permissible on the biblical, apostolic, patristic, and medieval assumption that sola Scriptura <\/i>is not the rule of faith in Christianity. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both noted many times that a doctrine can legitimately develop from tradition alone, or primarily.<\/p>\n

Unlike the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary which is not contradicted by the Scriptures and which is very strongly and unanimously taught by the church fathers, the immaculate conception contradicts the Scriptures and has very weak support among the church fathers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It doesn\u2019t contradict the Bible at all. Nothing in the Bible denies that Mary was or could have been sinless (like Adam and Eve were before the fall, and like the angels are), nor that she could have been conceived without original sin. It\u2019s one thing to assert that there is not explicit evidence of it in Scripture, or perhaps not even much implicit or indirect evidence; quite another to assert contradiction, which is a far greater claim, in need of demonstration.<\/p>\n

As for the fathers, well, yes and no. It\u2019s not explicitly asserted, but its developmental kernels are: Mary as sinless, the new ark of the covenant, and second Eve, all are repeatedly asserted by the fathers. Thus, this question goes back to the issue of development of doctrine.<\/p>\n

Even in the middle ages significant theologians like Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas denied the immaculate conception.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We always hear about this . . . First of all, St. Thomas didn\u2019t believe that the soul was united to the human body until 40-80 days after conception. He had a deficient understanding of biology and did not hold to the Church\u2019s current beliefs about ensoulment (i.e., a soul is supernaturally created by God at the moment of conception). Therefore, he could not have held to the Immaculate Conception as the Church does today, based on this false premise.<\/p>\n

Secondly, Thomas believed that Mary was extraordinarily sanctified in the womb: just not at conception, per the above, and particularly sanctified at the time of the conception of Jesus.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, he believed that she committed no actual sin. In all these things he was followed by Martin Luther, as I have documented. But none of these things are held by Lutherans today. Thus, St. Thomas was far closer to present Catholicism in this (and Luther) than to Lutherans or Protestants generally. I recently completed my book, The Quotable Summa Theologica<\/i><\/a>, and devoted almost six pages to his teaching in these matters. I won\u2019t cite his teaching here, but if this debate intensifies, I\u2019d be happy to produce them.<\/p>\n

The doctrine most likely developed as an attempt to safeguard the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ but as Thomas Aquinas points out, if Mary were sinless Christ could not be her redeemer.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Catholic Church wholeheartedly agrees that Mary was in need of a redeemer, like all human beings since the fall. She herself calls God her savior in the magnificat<\/i>. We contend that she was saved by being prevented (by an act of God\u2019s grace at her conception) from falling into the \u201cpit\u201d of sin, rather than rescued out of it, as the rest of us are, if we are saved. St. Thomas neglected to draw this distinction, therefore made a fallacious argument (even he<\/i> could do that on occasion). In this way, the Immaculate Conception is perfectly consistent with Mary\u2019s need of a savior, and to be rescued (in a special and unique act of God\u2019s grace) from the original sin she would have inherited, like every other human being.
\n
\nBut more recent Roman apologists in an attempt to win over evangelicals have tried to defend the doctrine immaculate conception from the Scriptures. On page 178 of \u00a0A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/i>, Dave Armstrong discusses the use of the term \u201cfull of grace\u201d and says:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene<\/i> as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the book, Armstrong does not treat the above as a direct quotation from any particular source but he does provide a footnote that says<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament<\/i>\u00a0(Chicago: University of Chicago\u00a0Press, 1961), 166; H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar<\/i>\u00a0(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), sect 1852:b.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The book does not cite Blass and DeBrunner as a direct quotation . . . <\/span><\/p>\n

All correct so far . . .<\/p>\n

. . . but if you search the internet, you\u2019ll find plenty of people quoting this as if it were a direct quotation from Blass and DeBrunner including Dave Armstrong on his blog.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Sometimes folks utilize my materials incorrectly. I checked out Chuck\u2019s assertion that I myself cited it wrongly as well. I did find one 2011 paper where I made this mistake (my book above was completed in 1996).\u00a0 I promptly corrected that and thank Chuck for directing my attention to it. Human errors can happen when one has written almost 2,500 blog posts.<\/p>\n

But page 166 doesn\u2019t say anything that resembles what Armstrong is saying here. Blass and DeBrunner simply mention that the perfect stem is used to denote \u201ca condition or state as the result of a past action.\u201d The passage cited by Smyth says, \u201cCompleted action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.\u201d None of this sounds anything like what Armstrong is saying. The passage clearly says that God graced Mary but it\u2019s rather insane to try to derive the doctrine of the immaculate conception from that.<\/span><\/p>\n

I love the use of exaggerated, dramatic rhetoric (\u201cinsane\u201d). It is also important to note \u201cwhat Armstrong is saying\u201d in the first place. In my book, I didn\u2019t claim that Luke 1:28 and kecharitomene <\/i>\u201cproved\u201d the Immaculate Conception. Immediately after<\/i> my words above, that Chuck cited, I wrote:
\n<\/p>\n

\n
Thus, in just this one verse, pregnant with meaning and far-reaching implications, the uniqueness of Mary is strongly indicated, and the Immaculate Conception can rightly be deemed entirely consistent with the meaning of this passage.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
The Bible speaks only implicitly of many things that Protestants strongly believe, such as the proper mode of Baptism\u00a0 (immersion, sprinkling, or pouring?). The Immaculate Conception is entirely possible within scriptural presuppositions.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The words \u201cconsistent\u201d and \u201centirely possible\u201d are obviously not the same as assertion of outright proof, or demonstration. Since my first book (written over 16 years ago) I have made additional scriptural arguments that are based on explicit texts, having to do with grace and sin. I would love for Chuck to take these on, if he is looking to have a biblically-based discussion of the Immaculate Conception.<\/p>\n

The ever-virgin Mary can truly be called the Queen of Heaven. She was given the most important position of any human being by being chosen by God to be the Mother of God.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Quite true.<\/p>\n

But Mary was a sinner who needed Christ to suffer and die for her just as well all do.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The second thing is not denied by Catholics. The first clause is an unproven assertion derived from mere traditions of men, and neither from the Bible nor the consensus of patristic teachings.<\/p>\n

[cross-posted to my Facebook page<\/a>]<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
* * * * *<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Small Cowper Madonna (c. 1505), by Raphael (1483-1520) [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons] *** (2-18-13) * * * \u00a0 Chuck Wiese (Lutheran) wrote an article on his blog (The Lamb on the Altar), entitled, \u201cDave Armstrong\u2019s Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception\u201d (17 February 2013). I\u00a0 shall cite it in its entirety below and reply […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":4512,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45,415],"tags":[46,503,2356],"class_list":["post-237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blessed-virgin-mary","category-lutheranism","tag-immaculate-conception","tag-marian-doctrine","tag-mariology"],"yoast_head":"\nDialogue with a Lutheran on the Immaculate Conception<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This is my detailed reply to Lutheran Chuck Wiese's article, entitled, "Dave Armstrong's Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception".\" \/>\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\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dialogue with a Lutheran on the Immaculate Conception\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This is my detailed reply to Lutheran Chuck Wiese's article, entitled, "Dave Armstrong's Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception".\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.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=\"2013-02-18T16:22:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-06T04:26:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2013\/02\/MadonnaRaphael2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"563\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"768\" \/>\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=\"8 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\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html\",\"name\":\"Dialogue with a Lutheran on the Immaculate Conception\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2013-02-18T16:22:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-06T04:26:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"This is my detailed reply to Lutheran Chuck Wiese's article, entitled, \\\"Dave Armstrong's Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception\\\".\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dialogue with a Lutheran on the Immaculate Conception\"}]},{\"@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 with a Lutheran on the Immaculate Conception","description":"This is my detailed reply to Lutheran Chuck Wiese's article, entitled, \"Dave Armstrong's Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception\".","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\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dialogue with a Lutheran on the Immaculate Conception","og_description":"This is my detailed reply to Lutheran Chuck Wiese's article, entitled, \"Dave Armstrong's Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception\".","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2013-02-18T16:22:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-06-06T04:26:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":563,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2013\/02\/MadonnaRaphael2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html","name":"Dialogue with a Lutheran on the Immaculate Conception","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2013-02-18T16:22:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-06T04:26:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"This is my detailed reply to Lutheran Chuck Wiese's article, entitled, \"Dave Armstrong's Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception\".","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2013\/02\/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dialogue with a Lutheran on the Immaculate Conception"}]},{"@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\/237","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=237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4512"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}