{"id":4524,"date":"2015-11-12T19:47:02","date_gmt":"2015-11-12T23:47:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=4524"},"modified":"2017-04-26T17:34:34","modified_gmt":"2017-04-26T21:34:34","slug":"defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html","title":{"rendered":"Dialogues with Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Mary Quotes"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
Original Title: \u00a0\u201cChallenged by Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Quotes on Mary: Read the Facts and Decide for Yourself\u201d<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"Mary15\"<\/a><\/div>\n
The Annunciation<\/em> (1914), by John William Waterhouse (1849-1917)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(10-6-11)<\/div>\n
\n

This exchange occurred at\u00a0Cranach: The Blog of Veith<\/i><\/a>: a Lutheran site, in the combox for the post\u00a0\u201cMariology.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0I was initially responding to the question of how \u201cCatholic\u201d Luther\u2019s Mariology was, later in his life. I said it was relatively more so; others thought the opposite. I gave three quotes from one of my papers on the topic, which were then disputed. I was asked to give full documentation (which I had already done in my existing papers). Then folks started getting very angry about it when I thoroughly backed up my citations . . .<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
Color coding:<\/b><\/div>\n

Dr. Gene Veith =blue<\/span><\/p>\n

fws =\u00a0green<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He cited evidence that Luther had a relatively \u201cCatholic\u201d view of Mary early in his career,<\/div>\n

Till his death, too, in many ways. As far as I know, he (along with virtually all early Protestant leaders) never ceased believing in Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity, or the propriety of calling her\u00a0Mother of God<\/i>\u00a0(Theotokos<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0Mater Dei<\/i>). He held even later in life a modified version of what Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception: that Mary was purged of original sin and was sinless at the birth of Christ and after. I have called this view, \u201cImmaculate Purification.\u201d It is like ours insofar as she was freed from original sin by God\u2019s grace at some point; different in that it was not at her conception. The early Luther (as late as 1527 for sure and possibly later) even believed the latter.<\/p>\n

Luther wrote in 1540:<\/p>\n

In his conception all of Mary\u2019s flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained. [1]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And in 1543:<\/p>\n

. . . a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost . . . [2]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And in 1543-1544:<\/p>\n

But in the moment of the Virgin\u2019s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person. . . . with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception . . .<\/p>\n

But later, when the time for assuming the flesh in the womb of the Virgin came, it was purified and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1:35: \u201cThe Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you.\u201d . . . this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, . . .[3]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I don\u2019t think he ever denied that Mary\u2019s Assumption was a perfectly permissible belief, either, though never required in his circles. All of that is far more \u201cMarian\u201d that (I\u2019d venture to guess) maybe 95% of Lutherans today. A lot closer in spirit to us than to y\u2019all, I dare say . . .
\n<\/i><\/p>\n

You listed a series of Luther quotes in post 31. Would you please do us the favor of giving us the references?\u00a0Those quotes from Luther dated in the 1540s are really radical\u00a0[sic]\u00a0contradictory to Luther\u2019s definition of Original Sin. Because of that fact, I simply don\u2019t believe they are valid quotes. they are either mis translations\u00a0[sic]\u00a0or bogus Dave.<\/span>\u00a0(10-6-11<\/a>)<\/div>\n

I don\u2019t believe that Luther, not even the Luther of 1521, believed that the Virgin Mary was without sin. Why not? This would have directly warred against the very foundation of his theology. And that theology was this: Only faith knows to be terrified at ALL its best and most virtuous works and so then only faith also knows that it needs to hide ALL those works in the Works of Another.<\/span><\/p>\n

And it is THIS faith that is Original Righteousness and the Image of God that Adam lost and is now restored in the New Man only through Holy Baptism. So I am certain that Mary had this faith. I am also certain that Luther had no illusion that Mary also lacked an Old Adam.<\/span>\u00a0(10-6-11<\/a>)<\/p>\n

They are legitimate quotations. I already gave links where I documented them. Granted, it is work to find them, though, so I\u2019m happy to do all the work.<\/p>\n

\n


\n<\/b>Example One:<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

In his conception all of Mary\u2019s flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained. (1540)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is the translation of Lutheran scholar\u00a0Eric W. Gritsch<\/b>, who was a major translator involved in\u00a0Luther\u2019s Works<\/i>, including, for example, the lengthy treatise,\u00a0Against the Roman Papacy: An Institution of the Devil<\/i>\u00a0(vol. 41, 263-376). It comes from the following book:<\/p>\n

The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII<\/i>, edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992.<\/p>\n

From Gritsch\u2019s chapter 8, \u201cThe Views of Luther and Lutheranism on the Veneration of Mary\u201d (pp. 235-238), but it is in a footnote on p. 381. Here is the fuller context (my bolding):<\/p>\n

As Luther put it in 1540: \u201cIn his conception\u00a0all of Mary\u2019s flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained<\/b>. Thus Isaiah is correct in saying, \u2018There was no deceit in his mouth\u2019 [53:9]. Each seed was corrupt, except that of Mary.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[footnote 23; p. 381: \u201cDisputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ,\u201d February 28, 1540. WA 39\/2:107.8-13.]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The primary source is\u00a0available in its entirety online<\/a>, translated from the Latin (WA) by Christopher B. Brown:
\n<\/a>
\nIn that rendering, the same portion is as follows (my bolding and caps):<\/p>\n

in conception\u00a0the flesh and blood OF MARY were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained<\/b>. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, \u2018There was no guile found in his mouth\u2019; otherwise,\u00a0every seed except for Mary\u2019s was corrupted<\/b>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Gritsch further observes (my bolding):<\/p>\n

Luther\u2019s views on Mary after 1521 are not substantially different from those he presented in the Magnificat. (p. 237)<\/p>\n

In 1527 Luther dealt with the Immaculate Conception of Mary, advocating a middle position favored by a majority of theologians. Following Augustine, Luther told his congregation that Mary had been conceived in sin but had been purified by the infusion of her soul after conception.\u00a0Her purification was complete due to a special intervention of the Holy Spirit, who preserved her from the taint of original sin in anticipation of the birth of Christ<\/b>. (Ibid<\/i>., p. 238)<\/p>\n

Two scholars doubt whether Luther affirmed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary: Preuss (n. 11 above came to the conclusion that Luther rejected the doctrine after 1528; O\u2019Meara states that \u201cit is likely, but not certain\u201d that Luther rejected the doctrine (118 [n. 11 above]). But Tappolet (32 [n. 1 above]) demonstrated with the use of texts that Luther did not change his mind. The literary evidence from Luther\u2019s works clearly supports the view that Luther affirmed the doctrine, but did not consider it necessary to impose it. (Ibid<\/i>., footnote 43; p. 382)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Example Two:<\/b><\/div>\n

. . . a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost . . . (1543)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is from\u00a0Gerhard Falk<\/b>, in his book,\u00a0The Jew in Christian Theology: Martin Luther\u2019s Anti-Jewish Vom Schem Hamphoras<\/i>\u00a0(McFarland & Co.: 1992, p. 217). This can be\u00a0viewed online<\/a>.<\/p>\n

See also, Beth Kreitzer,\u00a0Reforming Mary: Changing Images of the Virgin Mary in Lutheran Sermons of the Sixteenth Century<\/i>\u00a0(Oxford University Press: 2004):<\/p>\n

In a later writing Luther insists that Mary was \u2018saved and purified from original sin through the Holy Spirit\u2019 at some point before Christ\u2019s incarnation, although he does not specify when this happened. [99] (p. 124)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[99]\u00a0Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi<\/i>, 1543, WA 53, 640: \u201c[Maria ist] ein heilige Jungfraw, die, von der Erbsunde erloset und gereiniget, durch den heiligen Geist.\u201d Ebtener thinks that because this statement falls in the context of a defense of the incarnation, Luther means that Mary was purified at that point. Others (e.g., Schimmelpfennig) believe that this phrase still supports the immaculate conception. See Ebneter, \u201cMartin Luthers Marienbild,\u201d 78-79. [view online<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See also Bridget Heal,\u00a0The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Early Modern Germany: Protestant and Catholic Piety, 1500-1648<\/i>\u00a0(Cambridge University Press: 2007):<\/p>\n

Yet he still, in 1543, felt able to write that Mary was \u2018a holy virgin, who was saved and purified from Original Sin by the Holy Ghost\u2019, although he no longer specified at what point this purification took place. [157] (pp. 58-59)<\/p>\n

[157] WA, vol. 53, p. 640. [view online<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Example Three:<\/b><\/div>\n

But in the moment of the Virgin\u2019s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person. . . . with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But later, when the time for assuming the flesh in the womb of the Virgin came, it was purified and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1:35: \u201cThe Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you.\u201d . . . this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, . . . (1543-1544)<\/p>\n

This is from\u00a0Luther\u2019s Works<\/i>\u00a0(LW), vol. 7<\/b>,\u00a0Lectures on Genesis Chapters 38-44<\/i>\u00a0(translated by\u00a0Paul D. Pahl<\/b>), excerpts from pp. 12-13 and p. 31. I have this volume (hardcover) in my library (I have some but not all of LW).<\/p>\n

In Luther\u2019s reference above to Lk 1:35, the \u201covershadowing\u201d referred to\u00a0Mary<\/i>, not Christ (this is the Annunciation); and Luther tied that in to her flesh being purged and purified. Jesus\u2019 flesh cannot be purged from sin because no sin was ever in it to begin with, based on the Hypostatic Union and His deity. To deny that is again Nestorian heresy and (insofar as Christ is said to be sinful in any sense), I submit, blasphemous.<\/p>\n

This is the kind of Christological error that filled the movie,\u00a0The Last Temptation of Christ.<\/i>\u00a0Heaven forbid that Lutherans fall into that. You can\u2019t, according to your own confessions. E.g.,\u00a0Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article I:\u00a0Original Sin<\/a><\/i>\u00a0(43-44):<\/p>\n

43] Secondly, in the article of Redemption the Scriptures testify forcibly that God\u2019s Son assumed our human nature without sin, so that He was in all things, sin excepted, made like unto us, His brethren, Heb. 2:14. [omit Latin] That is: Hence all the old orthodox teachers have maintained that Christ, according to His assumed humanity, is of one essence with us, His brethren; for He has assumed His human nature, which in all respects (sin alone excepted) is like our human nature in its essence and all essential attributes; and they have condemned the contrary doctrine as manifest heresy.<\/p>\n

44] Now, if there were no distinction between the nature or essence of corrupt man and original sin, it must follow that Christ either did not assume our nature, because He did not assume sin, or that, because He assumed our nature, He also assumed sin; both of which ideas are contrary to the Scriptures. But inasmuch as the Son of God assumed our nature, and not original sin, it is clear from this fact that human nature, even since the Fall, and original sin, are not one [and the same] thing, but must be distinguished.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Luther was referring to Mary\u2019s flesh (not her \u201cnature\u201d) that Jesus then received, so that He had a human nature. And what we see in this work can be understood as in line with other similar utterances of Luther\u2019s.<\/p>\n

I list dozens of opinions of Lutheran scholars at length in my four papers on the topic.<\/p>\n

Someone else objected when I protested at having to provide documentation that I had already provided in my papers. I replied (ticked off a bit at this point, but still in control of myself, as I always am):<\/div>\n

I already\u00a0DID<\/b>. Past tense: D\u2014\u2014I\u2014\u2014D. It was all in my papers that I linked to (as I plainly stated). Why am I\u00a0required<\/i>\u00a0to do all that work when I already did it? I\u2019m not. We have search capacities now (Ctrl-F). Things can be located in one second. I have no such obligation to produce what I already have, online, for the record. I don\u2019t have unlimited time.<\/p>\n

But I did it anyway, so we can be rid of silly complaints. . . . in this case it was all thoroughly done\u00a0already<\/i>: documented to the nth degree, in existing papers. If anyone is able to read, they can find them, if they are so concerned about it and want to question their validity.<\/p>\n

Links are wonderful. We can link now and say: \u201cthe sources are over there if you wanna see \u2018em.\u201d It\u2019s like a high-tech footnote. But the Luther quotes\u00a0ARE<\/i>\u00a0THERE!<\/b>\u00a0They exist! I pulled them out in a more convenient manner and now anyone can see for themselves. If they wanna pick a fight with Luther\u2019s Works<\/em>, Gritsch (one of the guys in LW) et al, questioning their translation and understanding of same (now Gritsch is in the business of offering \u201cbogus\u201d Luther quotes?), I would enjoy watching that.<\/p>\n

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

Original Title: \u00a0\u201cChallenged by Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Quotes on Mary: Read the Facts and Decide for Yourself\u201d The Annunciation (1914), by John William Waterhouse (1849-1917) [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons] (10-6-11) This exchange occurred at\u00a0Cranach: The Blog of Veith: a Lutheran site, in the combox for the post\u00a0\u201cMariology.\u201d\u00a0I was initially responding to the question […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":4526,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45,415,23],"tags":[508,676,1436,675],"class_list":["post-4524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blessed-virgin-mary","category-lutheranism","category-martin-luther","tag-catholic-mariology","tag-luther-mariology","tag-luther-mary","tag-lutheran-mariology"],"yoast_head":"\nDialogues with Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Mary Quotes<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"I was asked to give full documentation of three Luther Mary Quotes. Then folks started getting very angry when I thoroughly backed up my citations.\" \/>\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\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dialogues with Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Mary Quotes\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"I was asked to give full documentation of three Luther Mary Quotes. Then folks started getting very angry when I thoroughly backed up my citations.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.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=\"2015-11-12T23:47:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-26T21:34:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/11\/Mary15.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"467\" \/>\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=\"11 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\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html\",\"name\":\"Dialogues with Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Mary Quotes\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-11-12T23:47:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-26T21:34:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"I was asked to give full documentation of three Luther Mary Quotes. Then folks started getting very angry when I thoroughly backed up my citations.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dialogues with Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Mary Quotes\"}]},{\"@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":"Dialogues with Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Mary Quotes","description":"I was asked to give full documentation of three Luther Mary Quotes. Then folks started getting very angry when I thoroughly backed up my citations.","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\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dialogues with Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Mary Quotes","og_description":"I was asked to give full documentation of three Luther Mary Quotes. Then folks started getting very angry when I thoroughly backed up my citations.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2015-11-12T23:47:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-26T21:34:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":467,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/11\/Mary15.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html","name":"Dialogues with Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Mary Quotes","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-11-12T23:47:02+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-26T21:34:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"I was asked to give full documentation of three Luther Mary Quotes. Then folks started getting very angry when I thoroughly backed up my citations.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/11\/defense-3-luther-mary-quotes-vs-lutherans.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dialogues with Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Mary Quotes"}]},{"@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\/4524","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=4524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4524\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4526"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}