Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 48

Mormonism is Not Christianity / Extensive Epistemological Discussion on the Definition of "Christianity"

I'm not scared to say it, but then, I am an apologist, whose job is to say unpopular things, and note that someone or something is in error. We can't say this in public now because it isn't "PC" and is supposedly "bad form." To me it is simply a fact: Mormonism denies the Trinity, which is essential to Christianity; therefore it is not Christian. In Mormonism, man becomes God and God was once a man.


[see entire post, with lively combox discussion (many of my own further comments included),on my Facebook page]


***

Mormonism is Not Christianity

I'm not scared to say it, but then, I am an apologist, whose job is to say unpopular things, and note that someone or something is in error. We can't say this in public now because it isn't "PC" and is supposedly "bad form." To me it is simply a fact: Mormonism denies the Trinity, which is essential to Christianity; therefore it is not Christian. In Mormonism, man becomes God and God was once a man.


[see entire post, with lively combox discussion (many of my own further comments included), on my Facebook page]


***

The Annunciation: Does it Indicate that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an Extraordinary Human Being, Chosen by God, and Already in a Sublime State of Grace? (Dialogue with a Lutheran, + Ridiculous and Groundless Personal Attacks Documented)

This dialogue occurred at Cranach: The Blog of Veith : a Lutheran site, in the combox for the post "Mariology," in comment numbers 21, 25, 27, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 203, 206. I have arranged all these comments (no words changed or edited out!) in order to make it a coherent, flowing, back-and-forth dialogue. 
Tom Hering's words will be in blue.
* * * * *
Mary as an examplar is Law, accusing us of falling short in the humility and obedience departments. Though why she should be made an examplar is beyond me, 
Why should the Apostle Paul be an exemplar: also being chosen by Grace alone as every Christian is? But he urged his followers to imitate him and follow his example (as I documented in #180 above).

as she was chosen by grace alone: "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you … Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God." No reason for this is given in the Annunciation, no deserving qualities in Mary are mentioned, just "God's favor" – unmerited grace.
Exactly! Where's the beef? You actually think that Catholics would deny this?

I do call Mary "blessed among women," but for the sole reason that she bore Our Savior. Yes, she received God's favor, but so have all of the elect – and they, too, because of grace alone.
I don't know anyone else who has been "hailed" by an angel [Lk 1:28]. Do you?

The Greek word is chairo, "greetings, rejoice, be glad." I definitely see how this greeting indicates God has favored Mary above all women, but I don't see how it indicates He has favored her on account of special qualities.
Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson writes about Luke 1:28:

"'Highly favoured'" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena 'is right, if it means "full of grace which thou hast received"; wrong, if it means "full of grace which thou hast to bestow"' (Plummer)."

(Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, Vol. II, 13)

Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" and that the literal meaning was "endued with grace" (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946, 1887 edition [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons], Vol. I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, defines it as "to endue with Divine favour or grace" (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., four volumes-in-one edition, 1940., Vol. II, 171).

All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can't avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to "divine favor, that is, God's grace" (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 201).

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary's personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

Thus, the angel favored Mary because she was full of grace, and being in that state was due to a special act of God. She had the special qualities; they came from God.


Gabriel had to tell Mary, "Do not be afraid." What sinless person would fear the Lord, much less the Lord's messenger? 
Angels were universally feared, because they are extraordinary creatures, and out of the ordinary. I don't see that Mary's reaction would be any different from anyone else's, whether she is sinless or not. One can be sinless, but still if one had no previous encounter with an angel, then they would tremble and fear. That's not sin. It's being a human being, responding to the extraordinary.

Nice generalization, but the verse doesn't say, "Don't be afraid. I know I'm an extraordinary visitor, but I'm a heck of a nice guy." No, Gabriel tells Mary to be unafraid for a specific reason: "'You have found favor with God.'" Which clearly indicates Gabriel knew that Mary, like any other sinful human, would be afraid she wasn't in good standing with God. And rightly so. (Don't you see how God's grace toward Mary was amazing?)
Yes, it is. All grace is amazing, but the grace He gave to the Blessed Virgin Mary is more amazing, arguably, than any other instance, since He made her full of grace. God is so good! Isn't God amazing, to use a human being in such an incredible way to bring about the incarnation of our savior and redeemer and Lord, Jesus Christ? God didn't necessarily have to become man or even (theologians and spiritual masters have speculated) choose the cross and all the agony involved in Jesus' passion. He could have simply proclaimed that we were all saved, or that those who accepted His free grace were saved. But He didn't do that. He chose to suffer and die for us, and He chose to use a created human being, Mary, to bear God Himself in her womb and to be the Mother of God. It is sublime beyond all words, how God does things like this. This is why we venerate Mary so highly: because she is a witness to and example of God's grace and love for His creatures like no other human being.

Many millions of Protestants put out statues of Mary at Christmastime, because they can't deny that the birth of Jesus was such an incredible event. And every birth I know of entails a mother, who is not exactly an insignificant player . . . We honor every mother of a baby, for all that she has done, and gone through. Yet when it comes to honoring the mother of Jesus Christ: a created human being who had God Himself in her womb for nine months, and who lived with Jesus for about thirty years before He was known to the world, the Protestant balks, on the ridiculous grounds that this must be idolatry, or, at the very least, that it must somehow detract from our adoration and worship of God. This is an insufficient spirituality and insufficiently biblical as well.

You have yet to convince me from Scripture that Lutheranism (or Protestantism in general) is "insufficiently biblical." Show me the verses and passages I asked you for. The ones that prove your not just adding your imaginings to God's Word. As I said, I'm waiting.
* * *
Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn't be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?
That doesn't follow, either, since Satan and all the fallen angels were in the presence of God. That didn't stop them from being disobedient, did it? You underestimate the strength of human (and demonic / angelic) free will by quite a wide margin.

What I carefully said @ 27 was (note the emphasis this time), "Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn't be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?"
The thrust of this seems to be, "big wow: Mary was obedient. Who [of believers] wouldn't be after an angelic visit?" But this is wrongheaded. We have free will. It is not a foregone conclusion at all that human beings will be obedient simply because an angel (or God) visits them.

For example, look at Jonah. The Bible says that "the Word of the Lord came to Jonah" (Jonah 1:1). He disobeyed: "But Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord" (Jonah 1:3; cf. 1:10). Then when he finally did what God told him to do, he was "displeased" and "angry" at the good result (Jonah 4:1).

Adam and Eve had direct contact with God in Eden. Nevertheless they rebelled. So being with God (more more fabulous and wondrous than being with an angel) didn't preclude the negative result and the rebellion. The first Eve said no to God; the second Eve said yes. What the Church fathers en masse marveled at and rejoiced over, you (and indeed many Protestants, for inexplicable reasons) regard as a ho-hum.

Thus, Mary is to be given credit for saying "yes" to God. That is the credit that can go to her, just as we are credited with all good and righteous acts, even though they are all ultimately due to God and His grace. As St. Augustine said (paraphrase), "merit is God rewarding His own gifts."

I mentioned Satan's rebellion, even though he had been in God's presence. Satan was a "believer" at one point. How could he not be? He was with God, as His greatest angel! He was in a state even higher than we will be if we get to heaven. But he decided to rebel. How can someone rebel if they haven't been in the camp from which they are rebelling? Therefore, your reiteration of your talking about a "believer" is irrelevant, since Satan was (just as Judas was). He used to be like the good angels now are.

"Big wow"? No, I consider it quite amazing that God puts a new heart into a believer, i.e., one who has received the gift of faith in Christ alone (the Christ that Mary looked forward to). And that this new heart responds spontaneously in humility and obedience. Amazing – full of grace indeed!

Satan and Judas were believers at one point? When did Satan or Judas ever trust in Christ for forgiveness?
When did Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel ever trust in Christ for forgiveness? Were they not "believers"?

We're talking about Mary. Are you going to address my questions and statements @193-194 directly, or are you going to continue to try to change the subject?
I did so, and am continuing to do so. My reply in #195 was exactly on-topic; dead on topic. It was a rhetorical question, based on the logical technique of reductio ad absurdum: not changing the subject at all. You just didn't grasp the logic of it (and so ignored the burden of answering).

In this case, the logic was that you would be required to deny that Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel were believers, by your definition of the term. Since that is patently absurd, and proves too much, your initial premise and definition collapse; hence you declined to answer, having been stewed in your own juice, so to speak, and chose rather to pretend that I was off-topic, rather than that you were off-logic and off-Scripture.

It's literally a textbook example of illogical and non sequitur thinking: fit for a textbook in logic (I took that course in college).

Show me the Scripture that says she was full of grace before the annunciation.
Luke 1:28. Because she is already in this state ("O favored one" — RSV), the angel hails her as such.

Show me this special pre-annunciation act of God in Scripture.
It follows logically from Luke 1:28 and (especially) from what kecharitomene means:

It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.

(Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, 166)

Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a "completed action with permanent result" (Smyth), and denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, Harvard Univ Press, 1968, pp. 108-109, section 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

Show me the Scripture that says she received these before the annunciation. 
Just did.

You can't. 
I not only can, but did. What can't be shown in Scripture (if you want to play that game) is the foolish notion of sola Scriptura: that only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith, to the exclusion of an infallible Church.

Asking you to convince me of RC teachings from Scripture alone is not a "game" – not for a Lutheran. Besides, having looked at your website, and seeing that you present yourself as a biblical RC apologist, you should have no problem at all making your arguments from Scripture – at least primarily. I'm waiting. 

* * *
So I would go further and argue her humility and obedience were not, in fact, special qualities. 
Duly noted. Mary really threatens you, doesn't she?

Threatened? Not in the least. I am, however, amused by the number of times you've claimed or suggested that Lutherans (or Protestants or Evangelicals) are afraid, or weak in faith.

The humble handmaiden of the Lord . . . We must flee from her in terror, lest our faith in God be imperiled!!! You must have a very weak faith, if you are so scared of losing it merely from venerating God's greatest created human being, just as Scripture says we should honor the heroes of the faith (Hebrews 11), precisely because they reflect the work and glory of God.

Rather, they were the normal response of a believer – a saint and sinner who looked forward to the coming of her Savior – when (A.) faced with an angel and (B.) fear of condemnation was allayed.
Mary's humility is exhibited throughout the biblical accounts where she appears. Many Protestants who deny every Catholic and traditional (patristic, apostolic, biblical) doctrine about her wouldn't dream of denying that, of all things. But you will have no talk of any extraordinary qualities of Mary! She only bore God in her own womb. Nothing to write home about . . . 

Seems to me you have to imagine an awful lot to support the idea of Mary's immaculate conception.
I have several arguments from Scripture. It takes faith to believe, like all Christian doctrines. The Christian (and Catholic) faith is not merely philosophy and epistemology, but a religious faith: a spiritual thing. It can't be reduced to logic (though it is never inconsistent with that). Faith is a supernatural gift granted by God's grace. God will grant anyone the eyes to see the truths of Mariology, if they are willing to grant them at least as possibilities.

I considered them more than possibilities back when I was RC myself. The only thing about Mariology that God opened my eyes to was the absurdity of it.

* * *
I can't "prove" the Immaculate Conception in some airtight sense, but there are a lot of things that can't be proven in that sense. I think the Catholic can demonstrate enough to show that the doctrine is plausible and not opposed to Scripture or reason at all.

* * *
I have no doubt that Mr. Armstrong believes "Catholics need only to show the harmony of a doctrine with holy Scripture." But that's not going to cut it with me – not from an apostle to the Protestants ( [image error] ) who wants me to believe he's truly biblical. More biblical than any non-Catholic. I know full well that anything – anything – can be "harmonized" with Scripture if you're clever enough.

* * * * *
I also had the following brief exchange in the same combox (#10, #183) with a person ("Jerry") of unknown denominational affiliation:
An additional insight from the Lutheran theology of the cross (vs the Roman Catholic and others theology of glory) is that Jesus in His complete humility was born to a big nobody. There is and was nothing in Mary to be adored, not even humility.
That's interesting. Why in the world, then, does an angel say to Mary, "Hail, O favored one . . ." (Lk 1:28)? Since when does an angel "hail" a human being?

Why does Mary say "henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Lk 1:48)? You certainly don't do that. So is Mary a liar, writing inspired Scripture about how she shall be regarded by posterity? in addition to being a "big nobody" (only bearing God the Son, after all, a trifle if ever there was one . . . ).

I later wrote on my Facebook page more comments about this:
Well, if he meant (technically) by "adored" what we do (i.e., reserved for God alone), he may have been saying that we shouldn't worship or adore anything in her, which we agree with, of course. But we venerate her and her attributes, because God made her what she is, and she said "yes" to Him.

Mary's yes is to her credit. It came by God's grace, but He grants us free will, so she could have said "no" just as Eve did.


If Mary had said no, God wouldn't have chosen her in the first place; He would have simply chosen someone else whom He knew in His foreknowledge would say yes.

* * * 
Alas, the inevitable personal attacks (sans answers to my arguments) started appearing. One "fws", who had replied to some of my earlier comments in the same thread (thought he was a nice and friendly guy), stated:

hmm.  he made a series of posts over there. not one links back to the discussion here...... no need to wonder why.  This man is sort of.. um.. crazy? dilusional? [sic] not sure what word to use. (#231; 10-10-11 as with all the following comments)

Todd, another regular Lutheran posted on this blog, was fair-minded enough (actually consulting the facts of the matter) to correct that right away (seven minutes later):

FWS (@231), sorry, but every single one of those posts on Dave's blog links back to Veith's blog. Jumped the gun there, pardner.(#232)

Then the illustrious Tom Hering couldn't resist getting in his ignorant barb:

Frank @ 231, the interesting thing is, I was never informed by Mr. Armstrong that he'd be posting my name and comments on his blog. Don't know if anyone else (you, Dr. Veith, Dan Kempin) received that courtesy. (#233)

And John Q. "Deadhead" Doe, of course, had to make his usual clueless remark:

It appears some of you were not all that familiar with the typical methodology of Roman Catholic apologetics. I myself remember asking the same sort of questions many years ago when I found my discussions from the CARM boards with a Roman Catholic apologist plastered on a web page, re-edited, without being informed [that was me, folks!]. At first I was very perturbed by it [yes; he threw one of the most ridiculous fits that I've ever observed online. The funniest part of it all was that the anti-Catholic moderators at CARM sided with me and said I had done nothing wrong], now I'm quite used to it. I can understand though, when all of a sudden you find your full name, place of employment, or other tidbits of personal information plastered all over another web site, all proving you've been "refuted." (#234)

Tom Hering again:

James @ 234, I understand the wild west nature of the internet. I just found it interesting that Mr. Armstrong doesn't follow the protocol he himself said was the right one to follow. (#235)

Nathan Rinne, a Lutheran friend with whom I have started cordial and constructive dialogues, defended me from these attacks, noting that I had made it crystal clear in the same combox, all of four days ago, as I write, on 10-6-11 (I know that's ancient history, but anyway . . . ), how I would be using dialogues engaged in on this Lutheran blog::

Tom,

In comment #71 Dave had said:

Please Note: whenever I do any public dialogue, I always post it on my blog, and always post both sides. And I almost always post all my opponents' words. If not (rarely, or if so, just a little editing), then I provide a link where they can be read in their entirety. If you object to that, just let me know, and I won't interact with you, and don't bother dialoguing with me, because I want my readers to see both sides (being the socratic teacher that I am), and it is wearisome to take out one side of a dialogue because a person refuses to let it be somewhere else online. Let it be known now, lest I catch flak (because some people don't like that and seem to lack the courage of their convictions, from where I sit). [bolding my own, in the original comment]

fws, re: your comments in 231, I'm a bit surprised you'd say what you did.... :  in the graphic that Tom provided in post 225, it shows that David had linked back to this discussion even at that point.  You can go there now and see he has done this with all of the posts that he has created as a result of this discussion, as he warned he would do.

Tom, regarding your comments in 226, I am sure that Dave Armstrong, while totally admitting his RC bias, would say that he has arranged the discussion as best he can - trying to be as "objective" as a human being can be.

I actually appreciate his approach.  I understand if others do not.  Its definitely not for everyone. That said, I think that he needs to get back here and answer everyone's questions.  : ) (#237)

Tom Hering admitted sheepishly:

Nathan @ 237, good enough. Though it's still not the personal notification Mr. Armstrong thinks he deserves. (#240)

fws (Frank Sonnek) decided to make himself look truly foolish by carrying his groundless gripe and clueless observations about my supposed character over to my blog. In the combox for this post, he wrote:

dave armstrong has "rearranged" this dialog beyond recognition. This is simply not an accurate reflection of the exchange. He ignores the context of the entire dialog which involved many persons. (10-10-11)

I responded:

I did no such thing. All I did was present the dialogue back-and-forth between myself and Tom Hering. I explained at the top of the post, my usual method of editing such exchanges from comboxes. All the original posts are also linked at the top, if anyone wants to go read, including other comments that may have touched on the topic. (10-10-11)

I had explained in the opening paragraph:

I have arranged all these comments (no words changed or edited out!) in order to make it a coherent, flowing, back-and-forth dialogue. 

Then in a combox for another paper, drawn from recent dialogues with Lutherans, Frank blasted me again:

dave, I take back what I said about your being honest. I note that you dont [sic] bother to show the link to the dialog over at Veith's site. there is a good reason for that isnt [sic] there? (10-10-11)

My reply to these (again!) truly surreal, completely non-factual accusations:

Thanks for your honesty.

I linked to the entire thread ("Mariology") right at the top. I also repeatedly linked to the individual comments of opponents (the link is in the date given after the comment). (10-10-11)

Frank Sonnek continued to rant over at the Cranach blog; issuing one apology (thanks), but continuing in his irrationality:

nathan @ 246 Dave Armstrong used my byline without my permission and pulled my comments out of their context. I do appologize [sic] for the factual error that says he did not link back to here. But I do not appologize [sic] for being offended at the way he used my comments. So who owes an apology to whom Nathan? How he used the dialog here over at his sight [sic] is dishonorable Nathan. I was extremely disappointed to see that, and I actually expected a far higher standard from brother Dave. (#264)
Tom Hering gives a big clue as to why the dialogue with him went nowhere, and why he now chooses to insult:

In my discussions with Roman Catholics, now, my attitude toward them depends on how loyal they are to the seat of the Antichrist. But what else would you expect from a Lutheran who takes the whole of his Confessions seriously? (You could check out the subject index in the Kolb Wengert edition of the BOC. One-and-a-half, fine print pages of references to statements on the Pope, and on those loyal to the Pope's authority. They ain't pretty. ) (#271)

***

The Annunciation: Does it Indicate that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an Extraordinary Human Being, Chosen by God, and Already in a Sublime State of Grace? (Dialogue with a Lutheran)

This dialogue occurred at Cranach: The Blog of Veith : a Lutheran site, in the combox for the post "Mariology," in comment numbers 21, 25, 27, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 203, 206. I have arranged all these comments (no words changed or edited out!) in order to make it a coherent, flowing, back-and-forth dialogue. 
Tom Hering's words will be in blue.
* * * * *
Mary as an examplar is Law, accusing us of falling short in the humility and obedience departments. Though why she should be made an examplar is beyond me, 
Why should the Apostle Paul be an exemplar: also being chosen by Grace alone as every Christian is? But he urged his followers to imitate him and follow his example (as I documented in #180 above).

as she was chosen by grace alone: "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you … Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God." No reason for this is given in the Annunciation, no deserving qualities in Mary are mentioned, just "God's favor" – unmerited grace.
Exactly! Where's the beef? You actually think that Catholics would deny this?

I do call Mary "blessed among women," but for the sole reason that she bore Our Savior. Yes, she received God's favor, but so have all of the elect – and they, too, because of grace alone.
I don't know anyone else who has been "hailed" by an angel [Lk 1:28]. Do you?

The Greek word is chairo, "greetings, rejoice, be glad." I definitely see how this greeting indicates God has favored Mary above all women, but I don't see how it indicates He has favored her on account of special qualities.
Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson writes about Luke 1:28:

"'Highly favoured'" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena 'is right, if it means "full of grace which thou hast received"; wrong, if it means "full of grace which thou hast to bestow"' (Plummer)."

(Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, Vol. II, 13)

Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" and that the literal meaning was "endued with grace" (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946, 1887 edition [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons], Vol. I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, defines it as "to endue with Divine favour or grace" (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., four volumes-in-one edition, 1940., Vol. II, 171).

All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can't avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to "divine favor, that is, God's grace" (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 201).

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary's personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

Thus, the angel favored Mary because she was full of grace, and being in that state was due to a special act of God. She had the special qualities; they came from God.


Gabriel had to tell Mary, "Do not be afraid." What sinless person would fear the Lord, much less the Lord's messenger? 
Angels were universally feared, because they are extraordinary creatures, and out of the ordinary. I don't see that Mary's reaction would be any different from anyone else's, whether she is sinless or not. One can be sinless, but still if one had no previous encounter with an angel, then they would tremble and fear. That's not sin. It's being a human being, responding to the extraordinary.

Nice generalization, but the verse doesn't say, "Don't be afraid. I know I'm an extraordinary visitor, but I'm a heck of a nice guy." No, Gabriel tells Mary to be unafraid for a specific reason: "'You have found favor with God.'" Which clearly indicates Gabriel knew that Mary, like any other sinful human, would be afraid she wasn't in good standing with God. And rightly so. (Don't you see how God's grace toward Mary was amazing?)
Yes, it is. All grace is amazing, but the grace He gave to the Blessed Virgin Mary is more amazing, arguably, than any other instance, since He made her full of grace. God is so good! Isn't God amazing, to use a human being in such an incredible way to bring about the incarnation of our savior and redeemer and Lord, Jesus Christ? God didn't necessarily have to become man or even (theologians and spiritual masters have speculated) choose the cross and all the agony involved in Jesus' passion. He could have simply proclaimed that we were all saved, or that those who accepted His free grace were saved. But He didn't do that. He chose to suffer and die for us, and He chose to use a created human being, Mary, to bear God Himself in her womb and to be the Mother of God. It is sublime beyond all words, how God does things like this. This is why we venerate Mary so highly: because she is a witness to and example of God's grace and love for His creatures like no other human being.

Many millions of Protestants put out statues of Mary at Christmastime, because they can't deny that the birth of Jesus was such an incredible event. And every birth I know of entails a mother, who is not exactly an insignificant player . . . We honor every mother of a baby, for all that she has done, and gone through. Yet when it comes to honoring the mother of Jesus Christ: a created human being who had God Himself in her womb for nine months, and who lived with Jesus for about thirty years before He was known to the world, the Protestant balks, on the ridiculous grounds that this must be idolatry, or, at the very least, that it must somehow detract from our adoration and worship of God. This is an insufficient spirituality and insufficiently biblical as well.

You have yet to convince me from Scripture that Lutheranism (or Protestantism in general) is "insufficiently biblical." Show me the verses and passages I asked you for. The ones that prove your not just adding your imaginings to God's Word. As I said, I'm waiting.
* * *
Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn't be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?
That doesn't follow, either, since Satan and all the fallen angels were in the presence of God. That didn't stop them from being disobedient, did it? You underestimate the strength of human (and demonic / angelic) free will by quite a wide margin.

What I carefully said @ 27 was (note the emphasis this time), "Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn't be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?"
The thrust of this seems to be, "big wow: Mary was obedient. Who [of believers] wouldn't be after an angelic visit?" But this is wrongheaded. We have free will. It is not a foregone conclusion at all that human beings will be obedient simply because an angel (or God) visits them.

For example, look at Jonah. The Bible says that "the Word of the Lord came to Jonah" (Jonah 1:1). He disobeyed: "But Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord" (Jonah 1:3; cf. 1:10). Then when he finally did what God told him to do, he was "displeased" and "angry" at the good result (Jonah 4:1).

Adam and Eve had direct contact with God in Eden. Nevertheless they rebelled. So being with God (more more fabulous and wondrous than being with an angel) didn't preclude the negative result and the rebellion. The first Eve said no to God; the second Eve said yes. What the Church fathers en masse marveled at and rejoiced over, you (and indeed many Protestants, for inexplicable reasons) regard as a ho-hum.

Thus, Mary is to be given credit for saying "yes" to God. That is the credit that can go to her, just as we are credited with all good and righteous acts, even though they are all ultimately due to God and His grace. As St. Augustine said (paraphrase), "merit is God rewarding His own gifts."

I mentioned Satan's rebellion, even though he had been in God's presence. Satan was a "believer" at one point. How could he not be? He was with God, as His greatest angel! He was in a state even higher than we will be if we get to heaven. But he decided to rebel. How can someone rebel if they haven't been in the camp from which they are rebelling? Therefore, your reiteration of your talking about a "believer" is irrelevant, since Satan was (just as Judas was). He used to be like the good angels now are.

"Big wow"? No, I consider it quite amazing that God puts a new heart into a believer, i.e., one who has received the gift of faith in Christ alone (the Christ that Mary looked forward to). And that this new heart responds spontaneously in humility and obedience. Amazing – full of grace indeed!

Satan and Judas were believers at one point? When did Satan or Judas ever trust in Christ for forgiveness?
When did Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel ever trust in Christ for forgiveness? Were they not "believers"?

We're talking about Mary. Are you going to address my questions and statements @193-194 directly, or are you going to continue to try to change the subject?
I did so, and am continuing to do so. My reply in #195 was exactly on-topic; dead on topic. It was a rhetorical question, based on the logical technique of reductio ad absurdum: not changing the subject at all. You just didn't grasp the logic of it (and so ignored the burden of answering).

In this case, the logic was that you would be required to deny that Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel were believers, by your definition of the term. Since that is patently absurd, and proves too much, your initial premise and definition collapse; hence you declined to answer, having been stewed in your own juice, so to speak, and chose rather to pretend that I was off-topic, rather than that you were off-logic and off-Scripture.

It's literally a textbook example of illogical and non sequitur thinking: fit for a textbook in logic (I took that course in college).

Show me the Scripture that says she was full of grace before the annunciation.
Luke 1:28. Because she is already in this state ("O favored one" — RSV), the angel hails her as such.

Show me this special pre-annunciation act of God in Scripture.
It follows logically from Luke 1:28 and (especially) from what kecharitomene means:

It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.

(Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, 166)

Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a "completed action with permanent result" (Smyth), and denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, Harvard Univ Press, 1968, pp. 108-109, section 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

Show me the Scripture that says she received these before the annunciation. 
Just did.

You can't. 
I not only can, but did. What can't be shown in Scripture (if you want to play that game) is the foolish notion of sola Scriptura: that only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith, to the exclusion of an infallible Church.

Asking you to convince me of RC teachings from Scripture alone is not a "game" – not for a Lutheran. Besides, having looked at your website, and seeing that you present yourself as a biblical RC apologist, you should have no problem at all making your arguments from Scripture – at least primarily. I'm waiting. 

* * *
So I would go further and argue her humility and obedience were not, in fact, special qualities. 
Duly noted. Mary really threatens you, doesn't she?

Threatened? Not in the least. I am, however, amused by the number of times you've claimed or suggested that Lutherans (or Protestants or Evangelicals) are afraid, or weak in faith.

The humble handmaiden of the Lord . . . We must flee from her in terror, lest our faith in God be imperiled!!! You must have a very weak faith, if you are so scared of losing it merely from venerating God's greatest created human being, just as Scripture says we should honor the heroes of the faith (Hebrews 11), precisely because they reflect the work and glory of God.

Rather, they were the normal response of a believer – a saint and sinner who looked forward to the coming of her Savior – when (A.) faced with an angel and (B.) fear of condemnation was allayed.
Mary's humility is exhibited throughout the biblical accounts where she appears. Many Protestants who deny every Catholic and traditional (patristic, apostolic, biblical) doctrine about her wouldn't dream of denying that, of all things. But you will have no talk of any extraordinary qualities of Mary! She only bore God in her own womb. Nothing to write home about . . . 

Seems to me you have to imagine an awful lot to support the idea of Mary's immaculate conception.
I have several arguments from Scripture. It takes faith to believe, like all Christian doctrines. The Christian (and Catholic) faith is not merely philosophy and epistemology, but a religious faith: a spiritual thing. It can't be reduced to logic (though it is never inconsistent with that). Faith is a supernatural gift granted by God's grace. God will grant anyone the eyes to see the truths of Mariology, if they are willing to grant them at least as possibilities.

I considered them more than possibilities back when I was RC myself. The only thing about Mariology that God opened my eyes to was the absurdity of it.

* * *
I can't "prove" the Immaculate Conception in some airtight sense, but there are a lot of things that can't be proven in that sense. I think the Catholic can demonstrate enough to show that the doctrine is plausible and not opposed to Scripture or reason at all.

* * *
I have no doubt that Mr. Armstrong believes "Catholics need only to show the harmony of a doctrine with holy Scripture." But that's not going to cut it with me – not from an apostle to the Protestants ( [image error] ) who wants me to believe he's truly biblical. More biblical than any non-Catholic. I know full well that anything – anything – can be "harmonized" with Scripture if you're clever enough.

* * * * *
I also had the following brief exchange in the same combox (#10, #183) with a person ("Jerry") of unknown denominational affiliation:
An additional insight from the Lutheran theology of the cross (vs the Roman Catholic and others theology of glory) is that Jesus in His complete humility was born to a big nobody. There is and was nothing in Mary to be adored, not even humility.
That's interesting. Why in the world, then, does an angel say to Mary, "Hail, O favored one . . ." (Lk 1:28)? Since when does an angel "hail" a human being?

Why does Mary say "henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Lk 1:48)? You certainly don't do that. So is Mary a liar, writing inspired Scripture about how she shall be regarded by posterity? in addition to being a "big nobody" (only bearing God the Son, after all, a trifle if ever there was one . . . ).

I later wrote on my Facebook page more comments about this:
Well, if he meant (technically) by "adored" what we do (i.e., reserved for God alone), he may have been saying that we shouldn't worship or adore anything in her, which we agree with, of course. But we venerate her and her attributes, because God made her what she is, and she said "yes" to Him.

Mary's yes is to her credit. It came by God's grace, but He grants us free will, so she could have said "no" just as Eve did.


If Mary had said no, God wouldn't have chosen her in the first place; He would have simply chosen someone else whom He knew in His foreknowledge would say yes.



***

The Annunciation: Does it Indicate that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an Extraordinary Human Being, Chosen by God, and Already in a Sublime State of Grace? (Dialogue with a Lutheran Minister)

This dialogue occurred at Cranach: The Blog of Veith : a Lutheran site, in the combox for the post "Mariology," in comment numbers 21, 25, 27, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 203, 206. I have arranged all these comments (no words changed or edited out!) in order to make it a coherent, flowing, back-and-forth dialogue. 
Tom Hering (if I have the right person), a former Catholic, is a "staff minister" at Our Savior Lutheran School, in Grafton, Wisconsin (affiliated with WELS: Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod). His words will be in blue.
* * * * *
Mary as an examplar is Law, accusing us of falling short in the humility and obedience departments. Though why she should be made an examplar is beyond me, 
Why should the Apostle Paul be an exemplar: also being chosen by Grace alone as every Christian is? But he urged his followers to imitate him and follow his example (as I documented in #180 above).

as she was chosen by grace alone: "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you … Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God." No reason for this is given in the Annunciation, no deserving qualities in Mary are mentioned, just "God's favor" – unmerited grace.
Exactly! Where's the beef? You actually think that Catholics would deny this?

I do call Mary "blessed among women," but for the sole reason that she bore Our Savior. Yes, she received God's favor, but so have all of the elect – and they, too, because of grace alone.
I don't know anyone else who has been "hailed" by an angel [Lk 1:28]. Do you?

The Greek word is chairo, "greetings, rejoice, be glad." I definitely see how this greeting indicates God has favored Mary above all women, but I don't see how it indicates He has favored her on account of special qualities.
Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson writes about Luke 1:28:

"'Highly favoured'" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena 'is right, if it means "full of grace which thou hast received"; wrong, if it means "full of grace which thou hast to bestow"' (Plummer)."

(Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, Vol. II, 13)

Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" and that the literal meaning was "endued with grace" (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946, 1887 edition [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons], Vol. I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, defines it as "to endue with Divine favour or grace" (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., four volumes-in-one edition, 1940., Vol. II, 171).

All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can't avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to "divine favor, that is, God's grace" (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 201).

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary's personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

Thus, the angel favored Mary because she was full of grace, and being in that state was due to a special act of God. She had the special qualities; they came from God.


Gabriel had to tell Mary, "Do not be afraid." What sinless person would fear the Lord, much less the Lord's messenger? 
Angels were universally feared, because they are extraordinary creatures, and out of the ordinary. I don't see that Mary's reaction would be any different from anyone else's, whether she is sinless or not. One can be sinless, but still if one had no previous encounter with an angel, then they would tremble and fear. That's not sin. It's being a human being, responding to the extraordinary.

Nice generalization, but the verse doesn't say, "Don't be afraid. I know I'm an extraordinary visitor, but I'm a heck of a nice guy." No, Gabriel tells Mary to be unafraid for a specific reason: "'You have found favor with God.'" Which clearly indicates Gabriel knew that Mary, like any other sinful human, would be afraid she wasn't in good standing with God. And rightly so. (Don't you see how God's grace toward Mary was amazing?)
Yes, it is. All grace is amazing, but the grace He gave to the Blessed Virgin Mary is more amazing, arguably, than any other instance, since He made her full of grace. God is so good! Isn't God amazing, to use a human being in such an incredible way to bring about the incarnation of our savior and redeemer and Lord, Jesus Christ? God didn't necessarily have to become man or even (theologians and spiritual masters have speculated) choose the cross and all the agony involved in Jesus' passion. He could have simply proclaimed that we were all saved, or that those who accepted His free grace were saved. But He didn't do that. He chose to suffer and die for us, and He chose to use a created human being, Mary, to bear God Himself in her womb and to be the Mother of God. It is sublime beyond all words, how God does things like this. This is why we venerate Mary so highly: because she is a witness to and example of God's grace and love for His creatures like no other human being.

Many millions of Protestants put out statues of Mary at Christmastime, because they can't deny that the birth of Jesus was such an incredible event. And every birth I know of entails a mother, who is not exactly an insignificant player . . . We honor every mother of a baby, for all that she has done, and gone through. Yet when it comes to honoring the mother of Jesus Christ: a created human being who had God Himself in her womb for nine months, and who lived with Jesus for about thirty years before He was known to the world, the Protestant balks, on the ridiculous grounds that this must be idolatry, or, at the very least, that it must somehow detract from our adoration and worship of God. This is an insufficient spirituality and insufficiently biblical as well.

You have yet to convince me from Scripture that Lutheranism (or Protestantism in general) is "insufficiently biblical." Show me the verses and passages I asked you for. The ones that prove your not just adding your imaginings to God's Word. As I said, I'm waiting.
* * *
Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn't be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?
That doesn't follow, either, since Satan and all the fallen angels were in the presence of God. That didn't stop them from being disobedient, did it? You underestimate the strength of human (and demonic / angelic) free will by quite a wide margin.

What I carefully said @ 27 was (note the emphasis this time), "Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn't be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?"
The thrust of this seems to be, "big wow: Mary was obedient. Who [of believers] wouldn't be after an angelic visit?" But this is wrongheaded. We have free will. It is not a foregone conclusion at all that human beings will be obedient simply because an angel (or God) visits them.

For example, look at Jonah. The Bible says that "the Word of the Lord came to Jonah" (Jonah 1:1). He disobeyed: "But Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord" (Jonah 1:3; cf. 1:10). Then when he finally did what God told him to do, he was "displeased" and "angry" at the good result (Jonah 4:1).

Adam and Eve had direct contact with God in Eden. Nevertheless they rebelled. So being with God (more more fabulous and wondrous than being with an angel) didn't preclude the negative result and the rebellion. The first Eve said no to God; the second Eve said yes. What the Church fathers en masse marveled at and rejoiced over, you (and indeed many Protestants, for inexplicable reasons) regard as a ho-hum.

Thus, Mary is to be given credit for saying "yes" to God. That is the credit that can go to her, just as we are credited with all good and righteous acts, even though they are all ultimately due to God and His grace. As St. Augustine said (paraphrase), "merit is God rewarding His own gifts."

I mentioned Satan's rebellion, even though he had been in God's presence. Satan was a "believer" at one point. How could he not be? He was with God, as His greatest angel! He was in a state even higher than we will be if we get to heaven. But he decided to rebel. How can someone rebel if they haven't been in the camp from which they are rebelling? Therefore, your reiteration of your talking about a "believer" is irrelevant, since Satan was (just as Judas was). He used to be like the good angels now are.

"Big wow"? No, I consider it quite amazing that God puts a new heart into a believer, i.e., one who has received the gift of faith in Christ alone (the Christ that Mary looked forward to). And that this new heart responds spontaneously in humility and obedience. Amazing – full of grace indeed!

Satan and Judas were believers at one point? When did Satan or Judas ever trust in Christ for forgiveness?
When did Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel ever trust in Christ for forgiveness? Were they not "believers"?

We're talking about Mary. Are you going to address my questions and statements @193-194 directly, or are you going to continue to try to change the subject?
I did so, and am continuing to do so. My reply in #195 was exactly on-topic; dead on topic. It was a rhetorical question, based on the logical technique of reductio ad absurdum: not changing the subject at all. You just didn't grasp the logic of it (and so ignored the burden of answering).

In this case, the logic was that you would be required to deny that Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel were believers, by your definition of the term. Since that is patently absurd, and proves too much, your initial premise and definition collapse; hence you declined to answer, having been stewed in your own juice, so to speak, and chose rather to pretend that I was off-topic, rather than that you were off-logic and off-Scripture.

It's literally a textbook example of illogical and non sequitur thinking: fit for a textbook in logic (I took that course in college).

Show me the Scripture that says she was full of grace before the annunciation.
Luke 1:28. Because she is already in this state ("O favored one" — RSV), the angel hails her as such.

Show me this special pre-annunciation act of God in Scripture.
It follows logically from Luke 1:28 and (especially) from what kecharitomene means:

It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.

(Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, 166)

Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a "completed action with permanent result" (Smyth), and denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, Harvard Univ Press, 1968, pp. 108-109, section 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

Show me the Scripture that says she received these before the annunciation. 
Just did.

You can't. 
I not only can, but did. What can't be shown in Scripture (if you want to play that game) is the foolish notion of sola Scriptura: that only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith, to the exclusion of an infallible Church.

Asking you to convince me of RC teachings from Scripture alone is not a "game" – not for a Lutheran. Besides, having looked at your website, and seeing that you present yourself as a biblical RC apologist, you should have no problem at all making your arguments from Scripture – at least primarily. I'm waiting. 

* * *
So I would go further and argue her humility and obedience were not, in fact, special qualities. 
Duly noted. Mary really threatens you, doesn't she?

Threatened? Not in the least. I am, however, amused by the number of times you've claimed or suggested that Lutherans (or Protestants or Evangelicals) are afraid, or weak in faith.

The humble handmaiden of the Lord . . . We must flee from her in terror, lest our faith in God be imperiled!!! You must have a very weak faith, if you are so scared of losing it merely from venerating God's greatest created human being, just as Scripture says we should honor the heroes of the faith (Hebrews 11), precisely because they reflect the work and glory of God.

Rather, they were the normal response of a believer – a saint and sinner who looked forward to the coming of her Savior – when (A.) faced with an angel and (B.) fear of condemnation was allayed.
Mary's humility is exhibited throughout the biblical accounts where she appears. Many Protestants who deny every Catholic and traditional (patristic, apostolic, biblical) doctrine about her wouldn't dream of denying that, of all things. But you will have no talk of any extraordinary qualities of Mary! She only bore God in her own womb. Nothing to write home about . . . 

Seems to me you have to imagine an awful lot to support the idea of Mary's immaculate conception.
I have several arguments from Scripture. It takes faith to believe, like all Christian doctrines. The Christian (and Catholic) faith is not merely philosophy and epistemology, but a religious faith: a spiritual thing. It can't be reduced to logic (though it is never inconsistent with that). Faith is a supernatural gift granted by God's grace. God will grant anyone the eyes to see the truths of Mariology, if they are willing to grant them at least as possibilities.

I considered them more than possibilities back when I was RC myself. The only thing about Mariology that God opened my eyes to was the absurdity of it.

* * *
I can't "prove" the Immaculate Conception in some airtight sense, but there are a lot of things that can't be proven in that sense. I think the Catholic can demonstrate enough to show that the doctrine is plausible and not opposed to Scripture or reason at all.

* * *
I have no doubt that Mr. Armstrong believes "Catholics need only to show the harmony of a doctrine with holy Scripture." But that's not going to cut it with me – not from an apostle to the Protestants ( [image error] ) who wants me to believe he's truly biblical. More biblical than any non-Catholic. I know full well that anything – anything – can be "harmonized" with Scripture if you're clever enough.

* * * * *
I also had the following brief exchange in the same combox (#10, #183) with a person ("Jerry") of unknown denominational affiliation:
An additional insight from the Lutheran theology of the cross (vs the Roman Catholic and others theology of glory) is that Jesus in His complete humility was born to a big nobody. There is and was nothing in Mary to be adored, not even humility.
That's interesting. Why in the world, then, does an angel say to Mary, "Hail, O favored one . . ." (Lk 1:28)? Since when does an angel "hail" a human being?

Why does Mary say "henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Lk 1:48)? You certainly don't do that. So is Mary a liar, writing inspired Scripture about how she shall be regarded by posterity? in addition to being a "big nobody" (only bearing God the Son, after all, a trifle if ever there was one . . . ).

I later wrote on my Facebook page more comments about this:
Well, if he meant (technically) by "adored" what we do (i.e., reserved for God alone), he may have been saying that we shouldn't worship or adore anything in her, which we agree with, of course. But we venerate her and her attributes, because God made her what she is, and she said "yes" to Him.

Mary's yes is to her credit. It came by God's grace, but He grants us free will, so she could have said "no" just as Eve did.


If Mary had said no, God wouldn't have chosen her in the first place; He would have simply chosen someone else whom He knew in His foreknowledge would say yes.



***

Reply to Lutheran Scholar Gene Edward Veith on Catholic Mariology and its Biblical Basis

 Dr. Gene Edward Veith
This exchange occurred at Cranach: The Blog of Veith : a Lutheran site, in the combox for the post "Mariology." I replied to the entire initial post by webmaster Gene Edward Veith, who is the Provost and Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity and Culture. I reproduce his entire article and reply to each point in turn. His words will be in blue. I appreciate his hospitality in letting me speak freely on his site, and offer a different perspective.
* * * * *
The recent post on "The Pope on Luther" led to a discussion of Luther's views of Mary, in which noted Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong weighed in.  (I am continually amazed at who all reads this blog.)  He cited evidence that Luther had a relatively "Catholic" view of Mary  early in his career, though after the Diet of Worms, in 1521.  (The source of that evidence was somewhat confused, though, which the discussion helped to sort out.)
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's perpetual virginity, or the propriety of calling her Mother of God (Theotokos or Mater Dei). 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, "Immaculate Purification." It is like ours insofar as she was freed from original sin by God's 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.


I don't think he ever denied that Mary's Assumption was a perfectly permissible belief, either, though never required in his circles. All of that is far more "Marian" that (I'd venture to guess) maybe 95% of Lutherans today. A lot closer in spirit to us than to y'all, I dare say . . .


One of the issues was the "immaculate conception," the Roman Catholic teaching that by a direct miracle of God the Virgin Mary was born without original sin.  
Well, conceived without original sin, to be precise. Hence the use of "conception."

This is an interesting example of the Roman Catholic theological method, as distinct from how virtually all Protestants "do" theology. The teaching is not arbitrary dogma, or the exaltation of tradition, or an extension of Mary-worship, or "popish superstition." 
Fair and ecumenical statement. Thanks!

Rather, it is a logical conclusion based on reason, as practiced by scholastic theology.
It involves reason, yes (as virtually all theology that I know of, does), but not without biblical argumentation.

The chain of reasoning goes like this: In order to redeem the world, Jesus Christ had to be without sin.

He couldn't have ever sinned, being God, and (even in His human nature) because of the Hypostatic Union. He was impeccable.

He certainly lived a sinless life. But he also needed to be without original sin as inherited from Adam.

He couldn't possibly have had original sin, either, since that was from the fall and rebellion of created human beings, of whom He was not one.

Jesus took His human nature from being born of the Virgin Mary, not having a human father. Somehow, though, He could not have inherited Adam's fallen nature, with its inherent sinfulness, its genetic (we would say) disposition to sin, the accompanying curses of the Fall. Therefore, the mother of Jesus must not bear that fallen nature. 
This is not Catholic reasoning (with all due respect). Theologian Ludwig Ott explains, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

As original sin is propagated by natural generation, and since Christ entered life in a supernatural manner through conception by the Holy Ghost (Mt. 1:18 et seq.; Luke 1:26 et seq.) it follows that He was not subject to the general law of original sin.

The Fathers and the theologians infer Christ's freedom fro original sin from the Hypostatic Union, which being a most intimate connection with God, excludes the condition of separation from God implied by original sin. (p. 168)

This being the case, Mary's state vis-a-vis original sin was irrelevant insofar as Jesus Christ was concerned. She didn't have to necessarily be conceived immaculately, either for His sake or her own, as the Mother of God. Catholics believe that God performed this miracle because it was "fitting" or "appropriate". Hence, if one reads the dogmatic proclamation of 1854 (Ineffabilis Deus), there is no trace of language about the Immaculate Conception being any kind of necessity in order for Christ to be sinless.

Mary's being immaculate had more to do with the analogy to Eve. Mary was the second Eve, who said yes to God rather than no. She was restored to the state that an unfallen Eve would have remained in. Hence the fathers had a prominent motif of "second Eve" or "the new Eve." The immaculate Eve rebelled against God and fell. The immaculate Mary said yes to God at the Annunciation and thus helped bring about the incarnation, leading to Christ's atonement and redemption: that reversed the curse of the fall.

That Mary did not have original sin means that she also did not suffer under the curse of the Fall. This explains the tradition that she did not feel the pains of labor.
That doesn't follow, either. Jesus Christ certainly suffered bodily, and He was without original or actual sin, and not fallen. He suffered in many ways before His passion; for example, in the Garden of Gethsemane, His betrayal by Judas, His lamenting over the sinfulness of Jerusalem; weeping over the dead Lazarus, even though He was about to raise Him, being misunderstood by Pharisees and scribes, etc.

Mary's not having pains in childbirth isn't due to that, but because it was an entirely miraculous childbirth and in accord with all the physical aspects of perpetual virginity (non-violation of the hymen in any fashion whatever). In other words, it followed from the nature of the Virgin Birth.

It also explains the bookend Catholic dogma the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. If she did not have original sin, she could not die, so must have been taken up bodily into Heaven.
There is that connection, yes. But again, Jesus lacked original sin, and was God, and He died. Most Catholics believe that Mary also died, by analogy to Jesus. But it is not required belief. She may have died; maybe not. I personally believe she did, because the analogy makes perfect sense to me, and she always sought to be like her Son. The dogmatic declaration in 1950 doesn't say whether she died. It says, "the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory".

Nor would an Assumption to heaven (to be technical, but accurate, I think) necessarily follow from the absence of original sin, since if human beings hadn't fallen, the result would have been immortality (no death), rather than Assumption.

The Assumption signified Mary being the first or among the first human beings to receive her resurrection body, due to the finished work of her Son Jesus on the cross. What better or more appropriate person to obtain that honor?

These notions sound strange to Protestant ears, but they grow out of the Roman Catholic approach to theology, which supports and extends revealed truth with flying buttresses of reason.
This is a better description because it is saying that we are utilizing the Bible also in our theological thinking. All Christian traditions apply reason to theology, or else they don't do theology, period. They would have to sit on a mountaintop and ponder their belly button or become a Quaker, with his "inner light" — if not. We're no different from anyone else in that fundamental sense. It's only relative: how much reason is applied or valued in the overall scheme of things.

So you guys say we place it too high; we say you place it too low. Fundamentalist types place it way lower than you do. I happen to like reason, myself. I think it's pretty cool. The Bible says that Paul reasoned and argued with Jews and Greeks alike. Jesus did it. Paul does it all through his letters. Melanchthon and Chemnitz and all the other great Lutheran theologians did. Even Luther occasionally lapsed and descended into reason (joke, folks!). We're called to love God with our minds, etc. Reason cannot be separated.

Now one might believe these things of Mary without seeing her as a mediatrix between human beings and Christ, without praying to her, and without seeing her as a co-redemptrix.
That's right. People manage to believe all kinds of things., in various and sundry combinations: consistently and inconsistently in varying degrees.

One could believe Mary was free of original sin and that she was received bodily into Heaven while still being evangelical, as Luther evidently did in 1521.
Yep. Heinrich Bullinger made a very explicit statement of belief in the Assumption, and he was Reformed.

But the Protestant theological method, which derived from Luther, uses not reason as the primary authority but the Word of God, which is held to be the only authority in theological issues.  
The only infallible authority, according to classic sola Scriptura rule of faith . . . It is the authority for us, too, but we don't pit it against authoritative tradition or Church, because the Bible itself doesn't do that and upholds those things, too. Therefore, to do so would be to not accept scriptural authority in its fullness and widest scope.

The Bible does not mention any of this about Mary, which is presumably would, if, as Rome claims, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are fundamental and necessary dogmas of the Christian faith. 
We contend that all Catholic doctrines (including even the dreaded Marian ones) are present in Scripture, explicitly, implicitly, or clearly able to be deduced from either sort of evidence (material sufficiency).

There are different levels of such evidence. The Virgin Birth has but a few support passages. Original sin also has only a few. Yet both are firmly believed by Christians of all stripes. Original sin isn't even mentioned in the Nicene Creed, and Cardinal Newman noted that there was far more support for purgatory in the fathers than for original sin.

Other things have to be (mostly or largely) deduced. Under this category would come things like the Two Natures of Christ. It's in Scripture, assuredly, but has to be "teased" out of it by an examination of many passages together. Even the Holy Trinity is mostly of that nature. I have papers giving many hundreds of biblical proofs for the Trinity, but they are not always evident at first glance. As a result, Christology developed in the early Church for about 600 years: with orthodoxy having to deal with (and condemn) Arianism, Gnosticism, Sabellianism (or modal monarchianism), Monophysitism, Nestorianism, and Monotheletism, each in turn.

Other things are totally absent in Scripture, yet believed by Protestants, who claim to be "Scripture Alone" (as infallible authority). The canon of the Bible is the best and most undeniable example of that. Protestants are forced to accept a "fallible list of infallible books" — as R. C. Sproul has candidly admitted. And they have to rely on the (Catholic) Church authority that proclaimed the canon (minus the deuterocanon). Sola Scriptura is another. It's found nowhere in Scripture.

I just finished a book about this: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (and it is to be published by Catholic Answers, so it's not merely self-published). Nowhere does it say in Holy Scripture that the Bible only is the infallible guide and rule of faith, to the exclusion of an infallible Church or infallible apostolic tradition (which is precisely what the Protestant contention is). And the Bible contradicts it all over the place. But that doesn't stop Protestants from believing it and basing their entire system of authority and method of theology on it: castles made of sand, like the old Jimi Hendrix song . . .

Denominations are nowhere found in the New Testament, which everywhere refers to one Church with one solid set of beliefs, that are non-negotiable. This is beyond all dispute. Many Protestant thinkers readily concede this, and lament it. Yet all Protestants live with the tension of the very existence of denominations being dead-set against what the Bible teaches about ecclesiastical authority and belief-systems of theological truth. Doesn't stop 'em . . . There is no choice. Sola Scriptura and the enshrinement of a circular private judgment made all that inevitable, and there is no way to eliminate it by Protestant principles, which are severely flawed from the outset, and far too unbiblical.

Now, all that was my roundabout way of addressing the criticism that our Marian doctrines are supposedly not "in" the Bible. They certainly are: just not (usually) explicitly, or sometimes (as in the Assumption) not implicitly, either, and able only to be deduced from other things. But this shouldn't pose any problem for the Protestant (unless we adopt double standards) because, as I've shown, they believe many things that are only infrequently indicated in the Bible or not at all. The canon issue of the denominational scandal never seems to cause any Protestants to reject their own system in and of themselves.

So that is one reply: we reject the double standard whereby you guys believe all that (and other things, too) with small or no biblical support, while at the same time demanding hyper-biblical-support for every one of our doctrines, as if we don't have it and yo do for absolutely everything you believe and even make a "pillar" of your system.

The second answer is that explicit support is not required anyway, because the Bible never teaches that: that every doctrine must be explicitly indicated in the Bible and nowhere else. If we are fully "biblical" that notion is completely absent. So why follow it? Well, because it is an entrenched, arbitrary tradition of man, is what it amounts to.

That said, I contend that there is more than enough biblical support for every Marian doctrine, so that no one can accuse any of it of being "unbiblical" or "extrabiblical" or contradictory to what is in the Bible. I will demonstrate this as I proceed, because I have made biblical arguments for all of it. And I think they are pretty solid and can withstand scrutiny.

I (and other Catholics) have made four distinct biblical arguments for the Immaculate Conception (or at least fundamental aspects of it). The first launches off of Luke 1:28: "full of grace" or (less literally) "highly favored" (kecharitomene in Greek) and the implications of that in light of the fact that the Bible (esp. Paul) makes grace directly the antithesis and "overcomer" of sin. This argument supports Mary's sinlessness, but not (directly or explicitly) her Immaculate Conception, which takes it a step further, and involved theological reasoning and speculation. Actual sinlessness is a key part of the belief, but not the entirety of it. Here are my papers where I delve into this biblical argument:

A Straightforward Biblical Argument For the Sinlessness of Mary

Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations

The second is an analogical and "plausibility" argument that is less strong but still worthy of serious consideration, I submit. This one shows that God has specifically graced or blessed certain of his saints and servants from conception or from the womb. This is only in my book about Mary, so I'll summarize it:

Neither the notion nor the fact of a sinless created being is impossible. The angels (excepting the fallen ones, or demons) are sinless and always have been. They never sinned. They never rebelled against God. They're creatures as we are, with a free will to sin or not sin. Adam and Eve were originally sinless and could have remained so had they not rebelled against God's commands.

We contend that the Immaculate Conception is a completely plausible act of God, and most fitting and proper and should not be at all "surprising," in light of several analogous variables in Scripture.

Another biblical argument can be made from the "proximity to God": in other words, "the closer one gets to God, the more holy one must be." I developed this at some length in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 178-185). The presence of God imparts holiness (Deuteronomy 7:6; 26:19; Jeremiah 2:3). The temple site was sacred and holy (Isaiah 11:9; 56:7; 64:10), and the Holy of Holies where God was specially present above the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:22), was the holiest place of all within the temple. When we are ultimately with God in heaven, sin is abolished once and for all (1 John 3:3-9; Revelation 14:5; 21:27).

Now, the challenge at this point is to show how and why one would posit the Immaculate Conception, based on the biblical data alone. Is it possible to do that? Can some semblance of an argument be made from the Bible: if not directly (as we grant), at least from analogy, plausibility, and indirect deduction? I think so.
It's fairly easy to find examples of holy people who have been sanctified or made righteous from the womb, and even (in terms of God's foreordination or predestination) from before they were ever conceived. The Bible does refer to holiness being imparted even before birth; indeed, even before conception. Samson was one such person (Jud 16:17). So were Isaiah and Job:

Isaiah 49:1, 5 (RSV) . . . The LORD called me from the womb, . . . [5] And now the LORD says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength –

Job 31:15, 18 Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb? . . . (for from his youth I reared him as a father, and from his mother's womb I guided him);

We also observe in Sacred Scripture that God has plans for His servants from even before they were conceived (God being out of time in the first place): e.g., Psalm 139:13-16. Thus, the idea that a person is somehow spiritually formed and molded by God and called from the very time of their conception (and before) is an explicit biblical concept. But we can produce even more than that: having to do also with holiness. The prophet Jeremiah reported the Lord's revelation to him:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (KJV: "sanctified thee")

"Consecrated" or "sanctified" in Jeremiah 1:5 is the Hebrew word quadash (Strong's word #6942). According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979 reprint, p. 725), in this instance it meant "to declare any one holy."

Jeremiah was thus consecrated or sanctified from the womb; possibly from conception (the text is somewhat vague as to the exact time). This is fairly analogous to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It approximates it. We know Jeremiah was a very holy man. Was he sinless, though? Perhaps he was. I don't recall reading accounts of Jeremiah sinning. The retort at this point might be that there is a lack of such a notion in the New Testament. But that's not true. We have the example of John the Baptist:

Luke 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

Luke 1:41, 44 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. . . For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.

We know that John the Baptist was also a very holy man. Was he sinless? We can't know that for sure from the biblical data. I don't recall any mention of a sin from John the Baptist, in Scripture. Lastly, St. Paul refers to being called before he was born:

Galatians 1:15 . . . he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,

Therefore, by analogy and plausibility, based on many biblical cross-references, we can and may conclude that it is "biblical" and reasonable to believe in faith that Mary was immaculately conceived. Nothing in the Bible contradicts this belief. And there is much that suggests various elements of it, as we have seen. It does require faith, of course, but based on the biblical data alone it is not an unreasonable or "unbiblical" belief at all.

If God calls and predestines people for a specific purpose from all eternity, from before they were ever born, as David states and as Jeremiah strongly implies, then what inherent difficulty is there in His sanctifying a very important person in salvation history, centrally involved in the Incarnation, from conception?

The possibility simply can't be ruled out. And if God can call Jeremiah and John the Baptist from the womb and (possibly) from conception, why not Mary as well? The one case is no less plausible than the other, and so we believe it, by analogy.

It's not foreign to biblical thinking, and makes perfect sense. According to the Catholic Church, God restored to Mary the innocence of Eve before the Fall, and filled her with grace, in order to prepare her for her unspeakably sublime, sanctified task as the Mother of God the Son. Why should He not do so?

The third biblical argument is the answer to the objection of the passage "all have sinned . . ." This is simply a matter of the nature of biblical language, and is easily disposed of:

"All Have Sinned . . . " (Mary?)

The fourth is the patristic and biblical analogy of Mary and the ark of the covenant, based on several parallels (typology):

Mary as Ark of the Covenant, in the Church Fathers and the Bible (Steve Ray, Pat Madrid, and Others) [Links Page]

Biblical Evidence for the Patristic Analogy of Mary as the Ark of the (New) Covenant

I gave a concise biblical argument for Mary's Assumption in my book, The One-Minute Apologist (pp. 114-115). Here is the bulk of it:

Adam and Eve were created without sin. They never had to sin, but they chose to rebel against God's commands and authority, so consequently the human race fell and all human beings are ordinarily subject to death and decay as a result. (Gen.3:19; Ps.16:10) Mary, on the other had, was given the great gift of being conceived without the taint of Adam and Eve's sin, so that she never committed actual sin. She received this gift because she was to be the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, and God thought it was fitting to prepare a pure and unspoiled vessel for Him. Her condition represented what all human beings could and would have been, and what saved persons one day will be: without sin.

Since she was without sin, and thus didn't have to die or undergo the decay of death, at the time of God's choosing she was assumed bodily into heaven (which is different from ascending to heaven under one's own power, as Jesus did). Jesus' Resurrection made possible the eventual bodily resurrection of all of his followers, (1 Cor.15:13–16 ) and Mary was the first to enjoy the reward made available to all who would believe in Him. After all, what is more appropriate than that Jesus' own mother should be blessed in such a way? She brought Him into this world, and so He brought her in a special way into the next world, body and soul. She represents the coming of the Kingdom, including new bodies and the end of death and sin. (1 Cor.15:26)

The early biblical figure Enoch was a particularly righteous man. It is written that he "walked with God" and that "he was not, for God took him." (Gen.5:24) This description is somewhat mysterious, but New Testament revelation further explains it:

Hebrews 11:5: "By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God."

Nor is this the only such instance. The Apostle Paul writes about being "caught up to the third heaven" before he died, (2 Cor.12:2–4) possibly bodily ("whether in the body or out of the body I do not know"). In 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, Paul teaches that those who are alive when Jesus comes again to earth, will (apparently) not experience death: "We who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord."


Of course, the most extraordinary biblical example of an "entrance into the next life" is that of the great prophet Elijah:

2 Kings 2:11: "And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli'jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

Protestant leader Heinrich Bullinger wrote the following extraordinary devotional statement:

Elijah was transported body and soul in a chariot of fire; he was not buried in any Church bearing his name, but mounted up to heaven, so that…we might know what immortality and recompense God prepares for his faithful prophets and for his most outstanding and incomparable creatures…It is for this reason, we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up to heaven by the angels.

[source material for this quotation] 

Even Mary as Mediatrix is easily supported by strong and repeated biblical analogy of God using vessels to distribute his grace and salvation (Paul talks about this a lot). See:

Human, Pauline, and Marian Distribution of Divine Graces: Not an "Unbiblical" Notion After All?

I collect a host of such passages in my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths: Rom 11:13-14 "thus save some of them," 1 Cor 7:16 "you will save your husband . . . save your wife," 1 Cor 9:22 "that I might by all means save some," 2 Cor 1:6 "If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation," Eph 3:2 "the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you," Eph 4:29 "that it may impart grace to those who hear," 1 Tim 4:16 "you will save both yourself and your hearers," 2 Tim 2:10 "I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation," Jas 5:20 "whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death," 1 Peter 4:8-10 "As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace."

God uses His creatures to spread His grace and salvation. We simply extend that to Mary being involved in all the grace, as God's chosen vessel.

Indeed, in the Magnificat, Mary's song in Luke 1:46-55, the Mother of our Lord praises God as her "savior," which implies that she too is in need of salvation.
Of course she is. God simply saved her by prevention rather than rescuing. By giving her the grace of the Immaculate Conception, before she knew anything (pure grace: all God), He saved her. She had to be saved from original sin like anyone else. This is the whole point of the grace! The Immaculate Conception presupposes it! So she can call God her savior. Whoever thinks Catholics believe any human being since the fall didn't need a savior, and purely by grace, simply doesn't understand Catholic theology, and must not have read Trent on justification, for starters.

And she certainly suffered, which Eve in her pre-fallen state did not, as Simeon prophesied to her: "And a sword will pierce through your own soul also" (Luke 2:35).
This proves nothing as to her being sinless or not, because Jesus suffered in Gethsemane and on the cross, and often in His life, in the non-physical fashion. He was sinless; He was God. If He can suffer, so can Mary or anyone else, and still be without sin.

Remember, Adam and Eve were in a "pre-fallen" world in Eden when they didn't yet have to suffer. Mary, though brought back to the original sinless state, pre-fall, still exists in a fallen world, so the analogy there doesn't hold. Jesus suffers for the same reason: because sin exists and causes suffering. It doesn't follow that either Jesus or Mary had to partake of the sin themselves in order to suffer.

Further, we could argue that Christ's incarnation and His redemptive work requires that He take upon Himself our fallen nature. He never sinned even though He shared our fallen flesh.
No we cannot say that. It is an impossible scenario. God cannot have a "fallen human nature" by definition, because that comes from the rebellion of the whole (created) human race against God; so that by so doing, He would be a hopelessly divided soul. How can God rebel against Himself? This is pure Nestorianism, and arguably (though I do not assert it myself) blasphemy.

Thus he became the Second Adam who freed us from the curse. (I know talking about the two natures of Christ can easily get heretical. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, and if I am, I recant.)
I think I just did. This particular notion is thoroughly opposed to Chalcedonian Christological orthodoxy.
The early Luther thought that Jesus went into the literal hell of fire (not just Hades) and was tormented there, but as far as I know, such blasphemy didn't enter into the Lutheran Confessions. Maybe I'm wrong about that.


***

Anti-Catholic John Q. Doe's Juvenile Obsessive Gloating Over His Role in My Change of Mind with Regard to Luther and the Immaculate Conception, and My Reply

This exchange occurred at Cranach: The Blog of Veith : a Lutheran site, in the combox for the post "Mariology." Doe commented at #124. The big dispute and my chronicle of my change of mind is recorded in my paper, Luther and the "Immaculate Purification". This is one of the many annoying behaviors that Doe perpetually exhibits: a sort of gloating, "I told you so!" attitude: exactly like that of a third-grade braggart and brat running around a playground at lunchtime. 
I have had enough of it and so gave this time a vigorous rebuttal of it. His recent words along these lines have been repeated in various form at least 25 times. He exhibits the same pompous, boorish behavior whenever I revise a paper (as if that were some monstrously indefensible thing!). His words will be in blue.
* * * * *
I find this all a bit surreal. This whole Luther / Immaculate Conception issue has been a battle for many years. Originally, Mr. Armstrong argued Luther held a lifelong belief that Mary herself was free from sin since her birth. That view he held and fought for for many years. We'd spar back and forth over it from time to time. One of his primary arguments was "x" amount of scholars held his position, and well, Swan is simply not holding the majority view, therefore, he's wrong. I arrived at my view by simply reading Luther. See this link for the details.


Some time last year we re-did the same battle on this topic. I presented the same exact position I had since the beginning of our disagreement. Somehow, I appear to have presented enough evidence for him to change his mind. Now of course, he's saying that I agree with him. That's surreal indeed, but OK, whatever. . . . I assume everything I've just written here will be thoroughly documented, refuted, and scorned. But that's how nightmares go.
I am not denying that these texts are about the conception of Christ: at which time Mary was purged of sin, according to Luther. This is the late Luther position, sometime after 1527 (or some say, 1532 or so). I've even given an original (?) name to his late position: "immaculate purification" (the title of my 4th paper on the topic) because he no longer believed that Mary's purification occurred at her conception, but rather, at Christ's (thus, "Immaculate Conception" of Mary no longer actually describes his view).

For the later Luther, original sin was purged from Mary (as in our view) but it was not at her conception (unlike our view). His early position was different and closer to the present Catholic view, as to when this miracle occurred. But even his later position was closer to ours than to the average Lutheran today.

Yes, I did change my position on this, and John Q. Doe played some role in that (we knew he would have to show up here, too: it's as inevitable as the sun rising; he loves to "encounter" me where it is 40 people on one side with him and me on the other; while he bans me from his site.). Truth can come from any quarter (even from those who are usually wrong on things).

What I despise is his obnoxious public attitude towards the event of my changing my mind. He seems to think that this should be some kind of an embarrassment or momentous occasion (as if I were infallible, or claimed to be), and goes around bragging, "I made Armstrong change his mind! I made Armstrong change his mind!" — as if I should go hide in some hole in the ground, for the shame of it, or kiss his feet in rapt admiration for his superiority over me.

That's silly and juvenile enough, but actually in a weird way it is a compliment to me, since he is so excited that he drools all over himself in giddy jollity because he helped convince me of something. Obviously he sees that as a triumph. Why should he care at all, seeing that he always says he doesn't take my apologetics seriously? It's a big farce.

Why would anyone care if they convinced someone of anything, whom they regarded as an imbecile with the IQ of a pencil eraser? Why would they go around engaging in flatulent polemics about that in public places? "I convinced the village idiot that the sea is blue!" Who cares??!! LOL But this is what Doe does, where I am concerned.

My approach is completely different from his. I say that any serious thinker will have to be willing to change his mind if it comes down to following truth wherever it leads. I did that on this particular Luther Marian issue. I sincerely believed that Luther held one view, and then was presented with evidence otherwise, thus forcing me to change my mind.

I follow truth wherever it leads me. This is why I converted from nominal Methodism and practical atheism to evangelicalism (in 1977) and to Catholicism (1990); from "pro-choice" to pro-life (in 1982), from political liberal to conservative (around the same time), and from sexual liberalism to traditional Christian moral values (early 80s). As an evangelical, I used to believe at one time, early on, in the rapture, then saw it was a falsehood and late-arriving belief. I came very close to becoming a Calvinist at one point. I didn't, but certainly if I had become convinced I would have done so in a heartbeat.

So I modified my opinion about Luther on one particular point. Big wow. Thinkers do that. Pompous polemicists like Doe, on the other hand, try to capitalize on such intellectual growth as cynical opportunities to try to trumpet their own vastly exaggerated brilliance and to make out that such a change of mind (where required by evidence) signifies intellectual weakness rather than strength.

I'm never ashamed to change my mind if it is necessary, and I couldn't care less who played some part in it, or what they happen to think of me. Truth is truth. If Doe says "2+2=4″ he's right! Nor am I ashamed to admit I made a mistake, as in the quotation controversy in the other recent thread on this site.


I do think, however, that there is a clear distinction between an honest, understandable mistake, and an inexcusable one, where someone has been informed of some fact over and over, yet continues to deny or distort it.



***

Challenged by Lutherans Regarding Three Luther Quotes on Mary: Read the Facts and Decide for Yourself How it Turned Out

This exchange occurred at Cranach: The Blog of Veith : a Lutheran site, in the combox for the post "Mariology." I was initially responding to the question of how "Catholic" Luther's 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 . . . 
Color coding:

Dr. Gene Veith = red fws = greenRev. Dan Kempin = blue

He cited evidence that Luther had a relatively "Catholic" view of Mary early in his career,
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's perpetual virginity, or the propriety of calling her Mother of God (Theotokos or Mater Dei). 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, "Immaculate Purification." It is like ours insofar as she was freed from original sin by God's 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.

Luther wrote in 1540:

In his conception all of Mary's flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained. [1]

And in 1543:

. . . a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost . . . [2]

And in 1543-1544:

But in the moment of the Virgin's 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 . . .

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: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you." . . . this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, . . .[3]

Sources for the above in this paper, or other papers of mine listed at the top of it. I don't think he ever denied that Mary's Assumption was a perfectly permissible belief, either, though never required in his circles. All of that is far more "Marian" that (I'd venture to guess) maybe 95% of Lutherans today. A lot closer in spirit to us than to y'all, I dare say . . .


You listed a series of Luther quotes in post 31. would you please do us the favor of giving us the references? Those quotes from Luther dated in the 1540s are really radical [sic] contradictory to Luther's definition of Original Sin. Because of that fact, I simply don't believe they are valid quotes. they are either mis translations [sic] or bogus Dave. (10-6-11)

I'm throwing a flag here. First, echoing Fws above, please provide us with citations when you quote Luther. We are the kind of people who like to check for ourselves. (10-6-11)


I don't 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.
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. (10-6-11)

They are legitimate quotations. I already gave links where I documented them. Granted, it is work to find them, though, so I'm happy to do all the work.

Example One:

In his conception all of Mary's flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained. (1540)

This is the translation of Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch, who was a major translator involved in Luther's Works, including, for example, the lengthy treatise, Against the Roman Papacy: An Institution of the Devil (vol. 41, 263-376). It comes from the following book:

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


From Gritsch's chapter 8, "The Views of Luther and Lutheranism on the Veneration of Mary" (pp. 235-238), but it is in a footnote on p. 381. Here is the fuller context (my bolding):

As Luther put it in 1540: "In his conception all of Mary's flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained. Thus Isaiah is correct in saying, 'There was no deceit in his mouth' [53:9]. Each seed was corrupt, except that of Mary."

[footnote 23; p. 381: "Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ," February 28, 1540. WA 39/2:107.8-13.]

The primary source is available in its entirety online, translated from the Latin (WA) by Christopher B. Brown:


In that rendering, the same portion is as follows (my bolding and caps):

in conception the flesh and blood OF MARY were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, 'There was no guile found in his mouth'; otherwise, every seed except for Mary's was corrupted.

Gritsch further observes (my bolding):

Luther's views on Mary after 1521 are not substantially different from those he presented in the Magnificat. (p. 237)

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. Her 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. (Ibid., p. 238)

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'Meara states that "it is likely, but not certain" 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's works clearly supports the view that Luther affirmed the doctrine, but did not consider it necessary to impose it. (Ibid., footnote 43; p. 382)

Example Two:

. . . a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost . . . (1543)

This is from Gerhard Falk, in his book, The Jew in Christian Theology: Martin Luther's Anti-Jewish Vom Schem Hamphoras (McFarland & Co.: 1992, p. 217). This can be viewed online.


See also, Beth Kreitzer, Reforming Mary: Changing Images of the Virgin Mary in Lutheran Sermons of the Sixteenth Century (Oxford University Press: 2004):

In a later writing Luther insists that Mary was 'saved and purified from original sin through the Holy Spirit' at some point before Christ's incarnation, although he does not specify when this happened. [99] (p. 124)

[99] Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi, 1543, WA 53, 640: "[Maria ist] ein heilige Jungfraw, die, von der Erbsunde erloset und gereiniget, durch den heiligen Geist." 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, "Martin Luthers Marienbild," 78-79. [view online]

See also Bridget Heal, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Early Modern Germany: Protestant and Catholic Piety, 1500-1648 (Cambridge University Press: 2007):

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

[157] WA, vol. 53, p. 640. [view online]

Example Three:

But in the moment of the Virgin's 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 . . .

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: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you." . . . this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, . . . (1543-1544)

This is from Luther's Works (LW), vol. 7, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 38-44 (translated by Paul D. Pahl), excerpts from pp. 12-13 and p. 31. I have this volume (hardcover) in my library (I have some but not all of LW). To see a great deal more context, go to John Q. Doe's page, "1544: Luther's Explanation Concerning Mary and the Birth of Christ".



More importantly, you need to re-read your own quotes. (I will credit you with hasty reading so that I am not tempted to accuse you of intentionally misleading.) The human nature that Luther is speaking of here being purified from sin is not Mary's, but Christ's. (10-6-11)


This is incorrect, as can be seen in context (though it does take some careful reading). Doe on his web page above agrees with me, in his interpretation of the same passages:

I've been presenting evidence that Luther's later view appears to be that at Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood.

This is seen, e.g., in Luther's reference above to Lk 1:35. The "overshadowing" referred to Mary, not Christ (this is the Annunciation); and Luther tied that in to her flesh being purged and purified. Jesus' 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.

This is the kind of Christological error that filled the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ. Heaven forbid that Lutherans fall into that. You can't, according to your own confessions. E.g., Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article I: Original Sin (43-44):

43] Secondly, in the article of Redemption the Scriptures testify forcibly that God's 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.

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.

Unless you are contending Luther also believed that Mary's nature was "united with the divine nature in one Person." (#31, umm, third citation without a reference.)

Upon re-reading you will find, in fact, that all of these quotes are Luther explaining how Christ could be sinless if He took His human nature from the sinful Mary. (10-6-11)


Luther was referring to Mary's flesh (not her "nature") that Jesus then received, so that He had a human nature. You need to read it more closely, not I. Even Doe, the Great Luther-Defender, agrees with me here. And what we see in this work can be understood as in line with other similar utterances of Luther's.

Ok, this is getting surreal. So now you are quoting James Swan as a source for your . . . never mind. I don't want to know. It takes a lot to put me off, but I'm starting to feel that I've been suckered. (10-6-11)
Naw; you just can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, as I did when I made a mistake with the other quotation. I ate my humble pie. It's no big deal. We all fail and stumble all the time. You're a human being like me. You'll survive the trauma of being wrong. I'm confident of that.

I know it's difficult to be corrected by the likes of me: not even being Lutheran and all. But the truth is what it is. It's there to be found: even by a nitwit like me. Read the Lutheran scholars: those who have treated Luther's Mariology, if you don't wanna believe me. I list dozens of their opinions at length in my four papers on the topic. [one / two / three / four]

Folks in here are getting awful angry. Why? It's just a theological discussion. No biggie. Should be fun . . . I'm having fun, aside from the felt time-pressure that I complained about.


Look, Dave, your quotes above speak against you for anyone who can read. Luther was not talking about the purification of Mary herself, but about the incarnation of Christ. I challenge anyone here to read the full context and say otherwise. If you decide to cite the source, that is. 
[dun did that already: Luther's Works (LW), vol. 7, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 38-44 (translated by Paul D. Pahl), excerpts from pp. 12-13 and p. 31.]
But don't expect to hear back from me on it. (10-6-11)

 
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):
I already DID. Past tense: D——I——D. It was all in my papers that I linked to (as I plainly stated). Why am I required to do all that work when I already did it? I'm 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't have unlimited time.

But I did it anyway, so we can be rid of silly complaints. . . . in this case it was all thoroughly done already: 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.

Links are wonderful. We can link now and say: "the sources are over there if you wanna see 'em." It's like a high-tech footnote. But the Luther quotes ARE THERE! They exist! I pulled them out in a more convenient manner and now anyone can see for themselves. If they wanna pick a fight with LW, Gritsch (one of the guys in LW) et al, questioning their translation and understanding of same (now Gritsch is in the business of offering "bogus" Luther quotes?), I would enjoy watching that.



***

Quick Biblical Argument for "Mother of God" (Theotokos)

Luke 1:43 (RSV) And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kurios) should come to me?

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord (kurios) and my God (theos)!"

"Lord (kurios) God (theos)": Lk 1:6, 32, 68; 4:8, 12; 10:27; 20:37.

Therefore, "Lord (kurios) equals God (theos).

Jesus is called both in Jn 20:28.

Mary is mother of the Lord (Lk 1:43).

Therefore, she is the mother of God, since Lord=God.

Case closed.

* * *
We don't say of mothers that they are the mother of their child's body, but of the child, and the child has a body and a soul. They didn't create the soul; God did.


Likewise, with Jesus, Mary was the mother of Jesus, Who is God the Son. Thus, she is the Mother of God. It's wrong and even illogical  to say she was the mother of His body. No; she was the mother of the Divine Person, Jesus, Who had a human nature and also a Divine Nature (that she had nothing to do with). But she is still the mother of the Person, regardless of that, as any mother is the mother of a person who has a soul directly created by God.



***

Exchange with a Lutheran on a Lutheran Blog Controversy, Lutheranism, and the Foibles of Anti-Catholic Polemicist John Q. "Deadhead" Doe / Doe's Site Continues to Host Many "Pope Benedict is a Pantheist" Papers

 This rather terse and polemical exchange (I would never honor it with the title, "dialogue") occurred at Cranach: The Blog of Veith : a Lutheran site, in the combox for "The Pope on Luther" -- starting at #209. It was a reaction to the previous one on a disputed / ambiguous Luther text that had occurred in the same combox (documented on my site), and my own replies to arch-nemesis John Q. "Deadhead" Doe, who barged into the discussion late with the aim of smearing and slandering me, as always (he wound up calling me a bald-faced liar right in the thread, implying that I stole a source from him, that I used in 1994). 
Brigitte's words will be in blue. She frequents John Q. Doe's blog, so, as we would expect, she sides with him (which is fine; I just think she is wrong about his antics and is blind to his virulent anti-Catholicism and extreme personal antipathy to yours truly). She did, however, -- to her credit -- take a neutral position on the "liar" incident. Her original posts had two #3's. I changed that, to avoid confusion.
* * * * *
Dear David Armstrong,
1. This whole discussion would be the thing which Mary would abhor with people whipping themselves up and over the veneration of herself. Have we not heard what she is saying? She bore CHRIST. Talk about CHRIST.
Not her. And not about yourself.
I have defended CHRIST and CHRISTIANITY for thirty years, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic, often at great cost in many different ways. I don't need YOU or anyone else to lecture me on the centrality of Jesus Christ. I've devoted my whole life to serving Him as a disciple, since 1977, as an apologist, missionary, evangelist, and pro-life activist. There are other topics, too, though. Luther preached eighty sermons on Mary, so it was not a complete non-issue for him.


As for "talking about myself": I did not make myself the issue. My name was mentioned here in a negative fashion (and I was not informed in courtesy, as usual). Your buddy (Doe) regularly slanders my name and work on his site, but as you know, I am not allowed to comment there. This site is classy enough to allow and even welcome a different perspective, so I had the chance to give my side (bravo, guys!). I may be detested by some here, but that is free speech, ain't it?

Dan Kempin initially said my goal was to slander Luther. He has since retracted that and apologized. Todd said (indirectly) that I was involved in fabricating quotations. He backed off, too, and apologized (seeing that I was very different from "anti-Luther" sites he has run across). But I had to talk about that. Now Doe has called me a bald-faced liar (right in this thread), again making it about me, and not the topic at hand (and I challenge you to take a stand on that). I'm supposed to take all that and sit here silently? I mentioned my past history with him, precisely because I knew he had personal motives, coming here at all (to somehow attack my work or character, as he now has). His behavior verified that and showed why I mentioned all the past nonsense in the first place. He poses as this great expert on Luther and ultra-superior to me in knowledge, and it simply isn't so.

2. Let's leave aside for now all the times you speak about yourself, your books, etc. and briefly look also at how you cast aspersions on others. We are not all completely stupid or ignorant here. We have heard of [John Q. Doe] here before and the level of your own scholarship is open here for all to assess. Let facts speak for themselves. We can think. You do not need to fill us in on all your past grievances to help us form a judgement. It really, truly, is not necessary.
I mentioned my book on Luther, to note that it was one-third "ecumenical." Even you, I think , would appreciate that. As for "casting aspersions," I have said several times that I enjoy dialogue with Lutherans, and have mostly enjoyed my time here. We had some friction, but that was cleared up. I have mentioned other books. That is not automatically vain. The webmaster here mentions his 18 books on the top of his sidebar. All authors do that. That is no more vain than your mentioning all your skills in German. It's a non sequitur. But it's great to include when you are trying to generate a picture of my supposed overall character, isn't it?

3. On the topic of [John Q. Doe], two things. Just to note in passing only one inaccuracy (something "apologists" can't really afford). It was not [John] who wrote about the pope and pantheism. I participated in this thread and know how quickly this matter was addressed and resolved. No need to bring it up or to pin it on [John Q. Doe]. Secondly, when [John] examines some sources he actually asks German speakers to look things over for him and translate for him. He has asked me several times whether a particular line is contained in various versions, etc. It can be researched. It is possible. It's not even hard. With the internet you could ask many people. I even translate what the pope said in German for Roman Catholics.
Yes, Doe didn't write about it himself, But he hosted the discussions on his site for many months. They were written by a co-blogger there, John Bugay. It's not much different to host rank nonsense and slander on one's site for an extended period of time, than to agree with it. It shouldn't be there at all. And I believe some of it is still on his site to this day, even though Bugay has departed, under pressure from other more sensible anti-Catholics who had a lick of sense. If you want to deny that, I'll start posting the URLs here.

It will be pretty entertaining to see the pope being praised for his ecumenism towards Lutheranism, while at the same time maintaining that he is a pantheist. We Catholics have been called many names. But I was surprised that "pantheist" would be one of them. And Doe thinks that is fit material on his blog for public consumption and education.

Here are existing papers along these lines, still posted on Doe's site (he may remove them now -- he is notorious for doing that -- so it is important to chronicle them):

 The Pantheism of Roman Catholicism (John Bugay, 10-28-10)

"Good Morning Starshine, the Pope says hello"; or, the continuing saga of the Development of Roman Doctrine (John Bugay, 11-15-10)

Good Morning Pope Starshine, part 2 (11-17-10)

Good Morning, Pope Starshine, Part 3: Michael Horton's New Systematic Theology Would Categorize You as a Panentheist (John Bugay, 1-13-11)

To top it off, "Viisaus," a real nutjob whom Doe is quite content to let comment on his blog at extreme length (while I am banned), wrote in a comment there (contending that Aquinas was also a pantheist):

And finally the logic of Aquinas would seem to collapse into full pantheism or panentheism - the whole universe, or mankind, or all Christians could in some sense be seen as "the body of Christ" or "image of Christ", and thus be worshipped with divine honours!

Thus simple reason would say that as long as RCs, and especially their Magisterial authorities, do not explicitly denounce and deny the Scholastic doctrine that "images of Christ" can be adored with Latria, we have a full right to mock and condemn them as idolaters, or at least as people who are aiding and abetting, or tolerating and pandering to idolatry. (3-17-11)

Bugay was quick to agree (within seven minutes):

Thanks for completing this loop for me Viisaus - this is a clear tie-in with some of the Ratzinger-and-pantheism things that I'd posted in the past. (3-17-11)

Yeah, it's "loopy" alright. I couldn't agree more.

And my replies:

"Enemy's Enemy": Catholic Bashers John Bugay and Tim Enloe so Clueless as to Utilize Sedevacantists in Order to Contend that Catholicism is "Pantheist" (10-28-10)

John Bugay and Pope Benedict XVI's Alleged "Pantheism": Even Fellow Anti-Catholics Know This is a Stupid, Groundless Charge (4-15-11)

Doe caught so much flak for all this garbage, that Bugay ceased being his associate. It was getting to be too embarrassing and bad PR. But (oddly enough) we see that the ridiculous posts still remain, in all their glory. The trick is to get rid of the public spectacle, but to quietly keep the outrageous content, anyway. Bugay was immediately welcomed into the even more extreme anti-Catholic arms of Steve Hays, over at his Cryablogue site, where he is now a regular blogger, just as he was on Doe's sites for a few years, writing trash like the above.
 
4. As Dan Kempin pointed out several times, to know what Luther actually says, you need to get not only to the sources but back to German. As I just said this is what scholars actually do. They not only read the sources and everything in context, they do know or learn German and read it in German. It is possible. It is probably taught in a High School near you. Even in evening classes. Which you could even possibly start taking yourself.
I touched on this issue of German and Luther in my short exchange with Rev. Dan Kempin. I agree that it would be good to know German to study Luther. I don't think it is absolutely necessary to understand his teachings, anymore than one must absolutely know Greek or Hebrew to understand the Bible. This is the whole point of translations. St. Augustine (if I recall correctly) didn't know Hebrew, and possibly not even Greek. If you're so gung-ho on the original sources, why don't you do us all a favor and check all the pages that Cole listed under WA? I would greatly appreciate that, myself, whatever you think of me.


I'm not a "language guy" myself. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I have immense admiration for those who know other languages. One of my best friends has a Masters in linguistics. Doe poses as this great expert on Luther's works in German and talks about knowing the original source, but he doesn't know German himself, as far as I know. He didn't even know what High German and Low German meant. It's the pretense that I detest. I will say straight out if I know nothing or relatively little about something, rather than pretend to be what I am not.

5. Which leads us to the not very difficult logical conclusion that the many untranslated works do not contain some "hidden" travesties which the world is being shielded from. There are actually many millions of German speakers, today, in the world. Just a reminder. We are not speaking of ancient hieroglyphics. Luther spoke and wrote freely for the whole world to read. And he has been heard and read. Your expectation that there should be a whole bunch more dirt that we don't yet know about does communicate something, also.

You exaggerate. I merely made the point that there are many untranslated works of Luther (and Doe initially denied that too, till I noted the new 20 volumes coming out). And it is undeniable that Lutherans have not been enthusiastic about presenting to the world in English some of Luther's ranting and raving (I have seen statements to that effect made by editors of LW, as I recall). E.g., his letter to Henry VIII wasn't in the 55-volume set, but it is an important historical document. My actual statement that you react to, read:

I'd love to see all this wealth of Luther material that is sitting out there in German, untranslated, because (in part) certain folks were scared all these years of what people would think.

Note the qualifiers "in part" and "certain folks". 

6. One more time, something that has been said so many times, which for some reason hardly ever seems to be understood. We are not called "Lutheran" because of allegiance to every word ever penned by Martin Luther. He is not our pope. He is not our magisterium. The parallel thinking, here, does not apply. If you really want to discuss doctrine with us, you will need to get it from scripture or the confessional writings and then we can talk. We say this over and over, but hardly anyone ever does this. 
Like Paul, and Mary, Luther wanted to know nothing besides Christ and him crucified for our redemption. Even Pope Benedict realizes this and talks about this. Maybe we can all stick with the program.
I've known this for at least 25 years, and mentioned it in this thread, so your time here is wasted on me. I agree with everything Pope Benedict XVI says about Luther. That is one of his functions as pope: to focus on ecumenism. I am ecumenical, too, which is why one-third of my Luther book was devoted to that purpose. At the same time, the pope would say it is necessary also for Catholics to defend our distinctive beliefs and critique errors in other Christian belief-systems. No contradiction. Jesus did both; Paul did both. Even Luther had the rare ecumenical moment . . .


In my in-box as I write is an extensive reply from a Lutheran, to my critique of Chemnitz. We get along perfectly fine. I have enjoyed many past dialogues with Lutherans. With a small minority, as in all classes of people, it is more difficult to get along (e.g., Paul McCain, who has always acted like a boor in our interactions, and has several put-downs on his site). But don't generalize about my history with Lutherans. Like most of my severe critics, you know little or nothing about me. But you have plenty of false stereotypical notions in your head . . .


Thanks for the sermon. Do you, too, think I lied through my teeth when I said that I found the source in Cole that I originally utilized in 1994? That is your friend Doe's position. I'm just curious what yours is.

David Armstrong, this much I agree: I have problems with what some people have authored on [John Q. Doe]'s blog and what gets countenanced, but not generally with what he posts himself. I think he is someone whose opinion is valuable. That's all we are interested in right now, if anything. And to be honest, as far as I have read him and yourself, I find his research infinitely more convincing.
Whether or not you swiped his answer is mostly immaterial to the discussion and I am incompetent and have no motivation to judge. If this makes you feel better: at this point I have no particular reason to disbelieve you, aside from the fact that you have already had to clarify and retract some points, as well as keep having things hinge upon your experience and expertise in being an apologist and a book author. It is the preciseness, correctness and incisiveness of the answer which will convince not protesting ever more loudly.


***