![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/07\/Luther-13.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is\u00a0 greatly abridged version of the original lengthy paper<\/a> (dated 6-28-03). It was a rebuttal of Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist James Swan\u2019s paper, Luther\u2019s Theology of Mary: A Response to Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong<\/a> (June 2003), which was in response to my paper,\u00a0Counter-Reply: Martin Luther\u2019s Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception): Has Present-Day Protestantism Maintained the \u201cReformational\u201d Heritage of Classical Protestant Mariology?\u00a0<\/a>(+\u00a0Part II<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part III<\/a>), which was a reply to his 2003 article,\u00a0\u201cMartin Luther\u2019s Theology of Mary.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Swan\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>. The tedium involved in dismantling one of these efforts from Swan is beyond description. I have constructed this abridged version in order to preserve the most significant and interesting parts, while sparing readers the indescribable agony of wallowing through the mud of Swan\u2019s sophistry, excruciating obfuscation, and juvenile, and repetitive, misguided personal attacks.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Interestingly though, when it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling; particularly since Luther\u2019s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t see why it should be \u201cpuzzling\u201d at all. Luther\u2019s Mariology is much closer to the Mariology of Catholicism than that of Protestantism, even of his own branch of it: Lutheranism. This is what a Catholic finds interesting and of note. It\u2019s one of those fascinating tidbits of history that makes the study of history so enjoyable.<\/p>\n Furthermore, it follows that if \u201cgoing back to one\u2019s roots\u201d and being a so-called \u201cReformation Protestant\u201d are worthwhile endeavors (it is for many thoughtful, historically conscious Protestants today), then I think it is significant that Protestantism has largely rejected the Mariology of Luther and other early Protestants (the shift with regard to the perpetual virginity of Mary is a particularly striking evolution of doctrine within Protestantism \u2014 in most cases today a 180-degree reversal).<\/p>\n As for Luther\u2019s stance on intercession of the saints, I have already long since acknowledged that this is a difference from the Catholic view, but (in my opinion) not enough of a difference to make his Mariology closer in content to current Protestant Mariology than to Catholic Mariology.<\/p>\n This paper is a response to the multiple versions of Dave Armstrong\u2019s \u201cCounter Reply: Martin Luther\u2019s Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception).\u201d Currently, I have three different versions of Mr. Armstrong\u2019s response to my paper, varying in layout and content. Perhaps with the ever-changing nature of Mr. Armstrong\u2019s web page response, we can expect to see further editing.<\/span><\/p>\n I find this very amusing.\u00a0The first version lasted only two days, and was modified after I discovered I had made a significant mistake, so the earlier versions are now irrelevant.\u00a0I uploaded the paper on April 24th. I edited it two days later, also adding some new material and re-organizing it. It\u2019s called \u201cediting.\u201d It\u2019s called \u201crefining.\u201d A single change within two days somehow gets described as \u201cever-changing\u201d<\/span>?<\/p>\n It is my contention that Mr. Armstrong\u2019s material on Luther\u2019s theology of Mary reflects an extreme position: the great Reformer was primarily in agreement with Rome in both doctrine and practice, with only minor conflict.<\/span><\/p>\n I would say that my view and approach to this topic is more so the belief that Luther\u2019s Mariology is closer<\/em> in content and spirit to Catholicism than to present-day Lutheranism (and far closer, compared to present-day Protestantism-in-general). In other words, I am examining its relative position between the two camps, not simply the Catholic camp. I fail to see how this position is extreme.<\/p>\n I believe my contention here is rather obvious. Luther believed in a slightly modified form of the Immaculate Conception. He believed in Mary\u2019s Assumption. He believed in her perpetual virginity. He freely called her \u201cMother of God\u201d (Theotokos<\/em>). He spoke of honoring her, and preached eighty Marian sermons.<\/p>\n Most Protestants today deny the first three tenets outright, are reluctant to say \u201cMother of God\u201d (usually due to Nestorian tendencies and a misunderstanding of what the term means, and how it historically developed), \u201chonor\u201d Mary (if at all), only at Christmastime or during sentimental moments while singing\u00a0Silent Night<\/em>, and preach and talk about her hardly at all (I don\u2019t recall ever hearing a Marian sermon in my 13 years as an evangelical Christian).<\/p>\n Yet Mr. Swan would have us believe that my view is \u201cextreme\u201d<\/span> in simply asserting that Luther\u2019s views are closer to Catholicism than Protestantism? It\u2019s a strange world . . .<\/p>\n Mr. Armstrong attempts to use O\u2019Meara and Lortz to deny this growth and development.<\/span><\/p>\n My paper sees Luther as a gifted thinker whose theology grew and developed, rather than a man whose later years were plagued by incoherence and ravings.<\/span><\/p>\n I utterly deny<\/em> the first comment and agree with the first clause of the second comment. I think Luther\u2019s \u201cincoherence and ravings\u201d<\/span> spanned his entire lifetime. The two are not mutually exclusive. As a serious theologian, his thought developed and expanded. The other aspect (second clause above) had mainly to do with his portrayal of Catholicism and Catholics.<\/p>\n His caricatures of Catholic doctrine and practices became more outrageous and vulgar as he grew older. But that is a different thing from his own theology. So I say that\u00a0both<\/em>\u00a0aspects are true.\u00a0 I need not deny either. It\u2019s a false dichotomy.<\/p>\n I have not offered no support for my opinions about the \u201ccontradictory\u201d Luther. I cited Roland Bainton (author of probably the most well-known biography of Luther:\u00a0Here I Stand<\/em>), who showed that Luther developed, but was also \u201can irascible old man, petulant, peevish, unrestrained, and at times positively coarse.\u201d<\/p>\n Likewise, elsewhere I cited a Protestant scholar, Mark U. Edwards, Jr. and his book,\u00a0Luther\u2019s Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531-1546\u00a0<\/em>(Ithaca, New York and London: Cornell University Press, 1983). Writing about Luther\u2019s work, Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil<\/em>\u00a0(March 1545), Edwards states:<\/p>\n The last major polemic of Luther\u2019s life . . . was intended to inform Protestants of the true horror of the papal antichrist and to discredit the council convened at Trent . . . Without question it is the most intentionally violent and vulgar writing to come from Luther\u2019s pen.\u00a0(p. 163)<\/p>\n Luther even commissioned Lucas Cranach to do a series of eight cartoons to give graphic expression to his evaluation of the papacy. He provided instructions for what the cartoons were to\u00a0show and penned satirical verses to accompany them. The violence and vulgarity of the treatise carried over to the cartoons . . . And he continued:<\/p>\n Next one should take the pope, cardinals, and whatever servants there are of his idolatry and papal holiness, and rip out their tongues at the roots (as blasphemers of God) and nail them on the gallows. . . Next, let them hold a council or whatever they want on the gallows or in hell.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n One of the cartoons depicts the pope and cardinals, and their tongues, being treated in just this brutal fashion . . . Another example, this one of the vulgarity with which Luther felt the papacy should be treated, came in his discussion of the keys . . . \u2018In addition, we may in good conscience,\u2019 he wrote, \u2018take his\u00a0coat-of-arms, which features the keys, and his crown to the privy and use them to relieve our needs\u00a0[and]\u00a0afterwards throw them into the fire (it would be better if it were the pope himself).\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The\u00a0associated cartoon shows a peasant defecating into the papal tiara while two other peasants await their turn . . . A third cartoon shows the Pope and three cardinals being expelled from the anus of a\u00a0female devil while three furies are nursing and caring for three infant popes. The cartoon was titled \u2018origin of the pope\u2019 and was a graphic echo of Luther\u2019s assertion in his treatise that the pope had been born from the devil\u2019s behind . . .\u00a0(pp. 189, 199)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Roland Bainton describes this \u201cart\u201d (my quotation marks) as \u201coutrageously vulgar . . . in all of this he was utterly unrestrained\u201d (Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther<\/em>, New York: Mentor, 1950, 298).<\/p>\n I pointed out that \u201cLuther did indeed have a Mariology.\u201d Mr. Armstrong though seems to think I am denying that Luther (and the Reformers) had a Mariology.<\/span><\/p>\n No; I denied Mr. Swan\u2019s assertion that Luther\u2019s Mariology was closer to Protestantism than to Catholicism. That was my underlying thesis, and the one which Mr. Swan so strongly (but curiously and strangely) disavows. It is not the same statement as \u201cdenying that Luther . . . had a Mariology.\u201d It\u2019s a matter of degree rather than \u201cexistence vs. nonexistence.\u201d Mr. Swan apparently thinks I am special pleading and distorting the historical picture for Catholic polemical reasons.<\/p>\n I need not distort anything. I think history clearly tells us (above and beyond scholarly disagreements on various details) that Luther and also the other early Protestant leaders were far more interested in and devoted to Mary than present-day Protestants. Mr. Swan can \u201cwork around the edges\u201d of this truth but it won\u2019t change the fact.<\/p>\n Mr. Armstrong\u2019s approach to Luther is an excellent example of the \u201cdrastic shift\u201d I noted above. When Luther makes positive comments in regard to Mary, Luther is seen as a positive theological beacon that all Protestants should flock towards.<\/span><\/p>\n Here we go with the melodramatic words again. First, we had \u201cextreme,\u201d now \u201cdrastic.\u201d My views are neither, as far as I am concerned. First of all, the argument at a deeper level is a comment on the\u00a0internal dynamics<\/em>\u00a0of Protestantism, with regard to the relationship of current Protestants to their origins (perhaps this aspect was misunderstood \u2014 my arguments against Protestantism often are, because Protestants are so completely unacquainted with such vigorous critiques and Catholic modes of thinking and argumentation are very foreign to them):<\/p>\n 1) Luther founded Protestantism. Secondly, I don\u2019t see why it is somehow a questionable notion that Catholics would commend Luther when his views are similar or identical to theirs. After all, Protestants do this all the time in their polemics, the other way around. They will quote some Catholic or a Church Father whom they think sounds like a Protestant (St. Augustine is routinely utilized in this way).<\/p>\n They will extol him to the heavens. But when the same person speaks in some shockingly Catholic way (say, about purgatory or allegiance to the pope), then he is (rhetorically) cast off like a pair of dirty socks. Protestant histories of the early Church are often typified by this love-hate relationship with early Christians.<\/p>\n Philip Schaff, in particular, comes to mind. He will often praise the \u201cProtestant\u201d elements of some Father and then immediately rail against the \u201cCatholic\u201d stuff that was widespread at the time \u2014 to his obvious dismay and bewilderment. Schaff is quite opinionated, but he sticks to facts and tells it like it was, which is why I like him so much. When Luther is right, the Catholic will commend him! That this is an amazing, \u201cdrastic\u201d<\/span> phenomenon is \u201cextremely\u201d curious to me. It\u2019s just common sense. Truth is truth.<\/p>\n Why is it that when Luther speaks about Mary, anybody should listen?<\/span><\/p>\n Protestants should listen, because he is the founder of their system and highly respected by them. The more relevant question, in my mind, would be, \u201cwhy should Protestants ignore Luther when he teaches about Mary, and why should they paternalistically dismiss his Mariology as, e.g., an unfortunate \u2018holdover\u2019 from the Catholicism that he only recently emerged out of?\u201d<\/p>\n It is hard to take Mr. Armstrong\u2019s views on Luther seriously.<\/span><\/p>\n One wonders, then, why such a huge paper (the longest direct response to my work that I have yet encountered) is devoted to them . . .<\/p>\n In my description of the medieval climate and Luther\u2019s own admission of partaking in Mariolatry (while a faithful son of the Catholic Church), Mr. Armstrong\u2019s charges that I put forth a \u201cCardboard Caricatures of Medieval (and Orthodox Catholic)\u00a0Marian Piety<\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed I did, and rightly so, for Mr. Swan made absurd statements like the following:<\/p>\n Mary had taken the role of intercessor, co-redeemer, and had been elevated to the status of a \u201cgoddess\u201d who would defeat Satan.\u00a0 She had become an idol. In the worship of idols, there is no salvation.<\/span>Mary takes on the attributes of Christ and thus becomes an idol . . .<\/span><\/p>\n While Luther could call Mary the \u201cMother of God,\u201d he was far more concerned to\u00a0<\/span>say something about the work of God in Christ than about her, thus, he un-deified\u00a0<\/span>her by definition.\u00a0 His usage was not intended to be a quasi-divine statement of\u00a0<\/span>veneration similar to medieval or current Roman Catholic trends.\u00a0 When Luther\u00a0<\/span>abandoned aspects of Mariology like the Immaculate Conception, it served to\u00a0<\/span>further un-deify the goddess . . . making sure that Mary was not to be deified . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Her attributes were worshipped in order to gain her favor.<\/span><\/p>\n He saw that she had been adorned with attributes that only belonged to Christ.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n What Mr. Armstrong fails to do in these criticisms is to put forth doctrinal standards of Marian piety within the Sixteenth Century to correct my (alleged) caricature.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s not my<\/em> task. Rather, it is Mr. Swan<\/em>\u2018s task to show that any of these absurd claims can be demonstrated by official Catholic teaching<\/em>. I say that they cannot. The burden of proof is on him, since he is making the charge. I\u2019m not interested in doing a giant study on the Marian folk piety of the Middle Ages.<\/p>\n
\n2) Many Protestants today are seeking to revisit, incorporate, or re-establish the \u201cReformation heritage.\u201d
\n3) Part of that heritage is Luther\u2019s Mariology, which is far more robust than present Protestant Mariology.
\n4) Protestants ought to ponder why this is, and consider that it may suggest that there is a bit more to Catholic distinctives than meets the eye, seeing that Luther\u2019s principle was\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, not adherence to all dogmas of the Catholic Church.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n