{"id":56863,"date":"2021-05-15T13:14:20","date_gmt":"2021-05-15T17:14:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=56863"},"modified":"2021-05-15T13:38:16","modified_gmt":"2021-05-15T17:38:16","slug":"luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html","title":{"rendered":"Luther’s Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/p>\n

This is section I of a lengthy paper (posted on Internet Archive in its entirety): Counter-Reply: Martin Luther\u2019s Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception), Part I (Has Present-Day Protestantism Maintained the \u201cReformational\u201d Heritage of Classical Protestant Mariology?)(vs. James Swan)<\/a>. It is a response to Swan\u2019s piece,\u00a0Martin Luther\u2019s Theology of Mary<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Tim Enloe, a Reformed Protestant writer who was very active in contra-Catholic apologetics in the early 2000s, but no longer is, wrote about Swan\u2019s piece on Eric Svendsen\u2019s anti-Catholic forum:<\/p>\n

For those who encounter RC apologists making exaggerated claims about Luther\u2019s Marian beliefs, I have just put up an outstanding paper by James Swan, a Westminster Seminary student whom I met on CARM [a Protestant discussion board] a few months ago when he was demonstrating Dave Armstrong\u2019s extremely poor research methods and outlandish claims about Luther. Given the large number of RC apologists who rely heavily on Armstrong\u2019s site for information about the Reformation and the Reformers, this is an exciting and thoroughly researched \u201cset the record straight\u201d paper.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I have removed from my blog tons of material from Tim, at his request. I don\u2019t know if he would still hold to this opinion of me or not. If so, he has never told me<\/em> that he renounces this jaded view of my research. He later clashed theologically and personally with even fellow Reformed Protestants like Bishop \u201cDr.\u201d [???] James White. I simply note that his views have no doubt evolved and matured, these past 18 years.<\/p>\n

This material was originally posted on\u00a026 April 2003. James Swan\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>. My older cited words will be indented.<\/p>\n

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

A quick search for information about Martin Luther on the World Wide Web reveals that polemics against Luther remain frequent and high-pitched, as different groups create the villain they find in his writings. The basic elements of Luther\u2019s thought are generally missing, distorting the man, his theology, and his impact upon post-Reformation society.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sketches of Luther from Roman Catholic perspectives bring forth numerous images. Some cling to presenting Luther as Cochlaeus did five hundred years ago, as a \u201ca child of the devil\u201d, a liar and a hypocrite, cowardly and quarrelsome. [Joseph Lortz,\u00a0The Reformation in Germany<\/em>, trans. Ronald Walls (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1968), 1:296. Lortz does not give the reference to his quote of Cochlaeus] Others present a more \u201cCatholic\u201d Luther, one of whom contemporary Protestants allegedly suppress to maintain doctrinal hostility to Rome. Such is the case with Luther\u2019stheology of Mary. One Roman Catholic<\/span>\u00a0[myself]\u00a0paints the Reformer as being a devotee to the Blessed Virgin:<\/span><\/p>\n

Luther indeed was quite devoted to Our Lady, and retained most of the traditional Marian doctrines which were held then and now by the Catholic Church. This is often not well documented in Protestant biographies of Luther and histories of the 16th century, yet it is undeniably true. It seems to be a natural human tendency for latter-day followers to project back onto the founder of a movement their own prevailing viewpoints. Since Lutheranism today does not possess a very robust Mariology, it is usually assumed that Luther himself had similar opinions. We shall see, upon consulting the primary sources (i.e., Luther\u2019s own writings), that the historical facts are very different.\u00a0\u00a0[Dave Armstrong,\u00a0<\/span>Martin Luther\u2019s Devotion to Mary<\/a>\u00a0[linked]; Internet; accessed 20 November 2002. This document is included in Appendix 1.]<\/span> [Dave (5-15-21): later, it was retitled,\u00a0Martin Luther Was Extraordinarily Devoted to Mary<\/a> and posted to my current blog]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The author draws a picture of Luther espousing a doctrine of Mary that reflects Roman Catholic theology, with little or no conflict with his<\/span>
\nReformation ideals.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is inaccurate. In the above paper, which is not all that long, I made several nuanced, qualifying remarks, contrasting Luther\u2019s Marian views with those of the Catholic Church:<\/p>\n

Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception . . . Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. [Dave (5-15-21): later I changed my mind<\/a> and accepted the view that Luther later held a modified opinion on the Immaculate Conception] Even some eminent Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine . . . In later life (he died in 1546), Luther did not believe that this doctrine should be imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn\u2019t explicitly and formally teach it. Such a view is consistent with his notion of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0and is similar to his opinion on the bodily Assumption of the Virgin, which he never denied \u2014 although he was highly critical of what he felt were excesses in the celebration of this Feast.<\/p>\n

Luther did strongly condemn any devotional practices which implied that Mary was in any way equal to our Lord or that she took anything away from His sole sufficiency as our Savior. This is, and always has been, the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, Luther often \u201cthrew out the baby with the bath water,\u201d when it came to criticizing erroneous emphases and opinions which were prevalent in his time \u2013 falsely equating them with Church doctrine. His attitude towards the use of the \u201cHail Mary\u201d prayer (the first portion of the Rosary) is illustrative. In certain polemical utterances he appears to condemn its recitation altogether, but he is only forbidding a use of Marian devotions apart from heartfelt faith, . . .<\/p>\n

To summarize, it is apparent that Luther was extraordinarily devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is notable in light of his aversion to so many other \u201cPapist\u201d or \u201cRomish\u201d doctrines, as he was wont to describe them. His major departure occurs with regard to the intercession and invocation of the saints, which he denied, in accord with the earliest systematic Lutheran creed, the Augsburg Confession of 1530 (Article 21). His views of Mary as Mother of God and as ever-Virgin were identical to those in Catholicism, and his opinions on the Immaculate Conception [but see my later clarification<\/a>], Mary\u2019s \u201cSpiritual Motherhood\u201d and the use of the \u201cHail Mary\u201d were substantially the same. He didn\u2019t deny the Assumption (he certainly didn\u2019t hesitate to rail against doctrines he opposed!), and venerated Mary in a very touching fashion which, as far as it goes, is not at all contrary to Catholic piety. Therefore, it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther\u2019s Mariology is very close to that of the Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day Lutheranism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is pointed out that Luther used the venerating term, \u201cMother of God.\u201d He also believed in her perpetual virginity, Immaculate Conception, and her \u201cspiritual motherhood\u201d of all Christians. He believed that prayers to her with \u201cheartfelt faith\u201d were allowed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Insofar as demonstrated in the paper and elsewhere on my website, by citations, yes indeed. Historical facts are what they are; I didn\u2019t make up Luther\u2019s views on Mary.<\/p>\n

Has the great reformer been done an injustice by his theological offspring? Have they neglected to follow his lead in venerating Mary as part of historic Protestantism? . . . By reading selected quotes<\/span>\u00a0[of]\u00a0Luther, it does indeed appear that Protestantism has deviated from his veneration of Mary.<\/span><\/p>\n

That is for Protestants themselves to decide (note that Mr. Swan \u2014 strangely \u2014 appears to even doubt the fact of such a change). I was merely presenting certain little-known facts about Luther\u2019s Mariology. Of course the Catholic would contend that Luther was more biblical and traditional on this score (hence, more correct and \u201corthodox\u201d from the historic Catholic standpoint) than virtually all present-day Lutherans.<\/p>\n

As for Protestant \u201csuppression\u201d of Luther\u2019s Mariology, I will cite just two examples from countless ones that could easily be brought forth. In the standard reference work,\u00a0The Theology of Martin Luther<\/em>, by Paul Althaus (tr. Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), a work of 464 profusely-documented pages, no section on Mary appears at all, though there are sections on topics such as, for example, \u201cThe People of God,\u201d \u201cThe Church as the Community of Saints,\u201d \u201cThe Office of the Ministry,\u201d etc., thus showing that the work is rather wide-ranging. Mary cannot even be found in the Index of Names. The closest it gets is \u201cVirgin Birth, dogma of\u201d (p. 464). The author writes in his preface:<\/p>\n

My purpose in this book is . . . to present a comprehensive overview of the basic elements of Luther\u2019s theological work . . .<\/p>\n

It is my intention that this book systematically present and interpret Luther\u2019s teaching.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Perhaps the key to the omission might be located in the following words:<\/p>\n

Luther\u2019s understanding of the gospel remains a vital reality in spite of everything in his theology which reflects the conditions of his times and which we cannot use.\u00a0(Preface to German edition, v-vi)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is neither my intention nor purpose to cast aspersions upon professor Althaus\u2019s generally excellent and helpful research. My point is only that current-day Lutherans and Protestants in general emphasize Mariology far less than the \u201cProtestant Reformers\u201d did (Luther, perhaps, above all). I don\u2019t see that this is even arguable. Whether one holds that this reality is a desirable or undesirable change (which is another question: one of theology, orthodoxy, creeds, and confessions), it exists nonetheless.<\/p>\n

To assert it as a rather obvious sociological fact (that is, obvious once one is a bit acquainted with the historical background of the development of Protestant thought) is not necessarily to take any particular position on the Mariological disputes in theology. Not all research on these issues has to have polemics and defense of one\u2019s own particular position on theology or history as its motivation.<\/p>\n

A similar situation can be found in Williston Walker\u2019s book,\u00a0John Calvin: The Organiser of Reformed Protestantism<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Schocken Books, 1969). In this comprehensive treatment of Calvin\u2019s life and theology (nearly 500 pages), one discovers a single (rather casual) reference to Mary.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Photo credit:<\/strong> James Swan, Reformed Protestant, anti-Catholic polemicist.<\/span><\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Summary<\/em>:\u00a0I engaged in a lengthy dispute over Luther\u2019s Mariology in 2003 with James Swan, Reformed Protestant, anti-Catholic polemicist. I am re-posting old excerpts from Internet Archive.<\/p>\n

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

This is section I of a lengthy paper (posted on Internet Archive in its entirety): Counter-Reply: Martin Luther\u2019s Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception), Part I (Has Present-Day Protestantism Maintained the \u201cReformational\u201d Heritage of Classical Protestant Mariology?)(vs. James Swan). It is a response to Swan\u2019s piece,\u00a0Martin Luther\u2019s Theology of Mary. Tim Enloe, a Reformed Protestant writer […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":56866,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,45,23],"tags":[11252,2357,832,682,2356,2348],"class_list":["post-56863","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-blessed-virgin-mary","category-martin-luther","tag-anti-catholic-mariology","tag-blessed-virgin-mary","tag-james-swan","tag-luthers-mariology","tag-mariology","tag-martin-luther"],"yoast_head":"\nLuther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan) Luther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan)<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This is section I of a lengthy paper (posted on Internet Archive in its entirety): Counter-Reply: Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate I engaged in a lengthy dispute over Luther's Mariology in 2003 with James Swan, Reformed Protestant, anti-Catholic polemicist. I am re-posting old excerpts from Internet Archive.\" \/>\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\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Luther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan) Luther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This is section I of a lengthy paper (posted on Internet Archive in its entirety): Counter-Reply: Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate I engaged in a lengthy dispute over Luther's Mariology in 2003 with James Swan, Reformed Protestant, anti-Catholic polemicist. I am re-posting old excerpts from Internet Archive.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.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=\"2021-05-15T17:14:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-05-15T17:38:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/05\/SwanStretched.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"416\" \/>\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\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html\",\"name\":\"Luther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan) Luther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan)\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-05-15T17:14:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-05-15T17:38:16+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"This is section I of a lengthy paper (posted on Internet Archive in its entirety): Counter-Reply: Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate I engaged in a lengthy dispute over Luther's Mariology in 2003 with James Swan, Reformed Protestant, anti-Catholic polemicist. I am re-posting old excerpts from Internet Archive.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Luther’s Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan)\"}]},{\"@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":"Luther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan) Luther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan)","description":"This is section I of a lengthy paper (posted on Internet Archive in its entirety): Counter-Reply: Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate I engaged in a lengthy dispute over Luther's Mariology in 2003 with James Swan, Reformed Protestant, anti-Catholic polemicist. I am re-posting old excerpts from Internet Archive.","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\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Luther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan) Luther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan)","og_description":"This is section I of a lengthy paper (posted on Internet Archive in its entirety): Counter-Reply: Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate I engaged in a lengthy dispute over Luther's Mariology in 2003 with James Swan, Reformed Protestant, anti-Catholic polemicist. I am re-posting old excerpts from Internet Archive.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2021-05-15T17:14:20+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-05-15T17:38:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":416,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/05\/SwanStretched.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\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html","name":"Luther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan) Luther's Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan)","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-05-15T17:14:20+00:00","dateModified":"2021-05-15T17:38:16+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"This is section I of a lengthy paper (posted on Internet Archive in its entirety): Counter-Reply: Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate I engaged in a lengthy dispute over Luther's Mariology in 2003 with James Swan, Reformed Protestant, anti-Catholic polemicist. I am re-posting old excerpts from Internet Archive.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/luthers-mariology-the-protestant-view-vs-james-swan.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Luther’s Mariology: the Protestant View (vs. James Swan)"}]},{"@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\/56863","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=56863"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56863\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/56866"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56863"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56863"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}