Money Doesn't Grow on Trees: Please Support My Full-Time Apologetics Apostolate if You Consider This Work Helpful

See an earlier post for details of difficulties caused almost wholly by the economy. I offer an unbeatable 15 e-books for $25 deal, a second set of five e-books for $15 and 100% tax-deduction for donations; also a paperback book of your choice (you must request it) for a donation of over $100. Thanks so much for reading and for your support.

New Books About Mariology, Salvation, and Christian Historical and Philosophical Influence on Science / Additional "Five-Pack" of E-Books Coming Soon

My next book will be about the perennially controversial topic of the Blessed Virgin Mary: the first in my collection of books (currently 20 in number; shortly to be 23) exclusively devoted to Mary (no pun intended). The semi-provocative, hopefully catchy title is "The Catholic Mary": Quite Contrary to the Bible? I finished it on 11 September 2010, and it's 193 pages long, with 21 chapters, covering almost all major aspects of Catholic Mariology.

The book is the centerpiece of a new set of five e-books that will be separate from my main 15 books-for-$25 deal. This second set will retail for $15, so that the grand total for all my e-books will be a remarkable 20 books for $40: the best book deal (insofar as an e-book can be considered a book) in Catholic apologetics, by far.

Another new book is my first devoted solely to the supremely important topic of salvation / soteriology. It's entitled Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” and contains 16 chapters on various aspects, including extensive critiques (for 114 pages) of Calvinism, or Reformed Protestant soteriology (TULIP, double predestination, etc.). I began putting it together on 20 September 2010 and finished on 9 October 2010; it is 203 pages long.

The third new book of the set is called Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies?: The Historical Record. I began putting that together on 11 October 2010. It has 17 chapters and will have many hundreds of hyper-links in the e-book version. At this point I think it'll be available only as an e-book, because of the importance of maintaining the links. But I may change my mind (especially if people start requesting a paperback).

Rounding the new set out will be two older books that are not currently included in the 15-book deal (Family Matters: Catholic Theology of the Family and Twin Scourges: Thoughts on Anti-Catholicism & Theological Liberalism). All three new books and the book deal will be presented simultaneously.

Mountain Biking: My New (Crazy?) Hobby

Here I go again with one of my new interests. I had never done this before, but now at age 52 (with rheumatoid arthritis and a generally bad back), I decided to follow my daredevilish urges (combined with my usual near-fanatical love of nature). I had no idea what it was like till my 13 year-old son Matthew and I decided yesterday (a gorgeous fall day: about 70 degrees and sunny) to traverse the Pontiac Lake State Recreation mountain bike trail [see second web page, too] in Oakland County, about 35 miles north of Detroit.

It's considered one of the very best mountain bike trails in Michigan, and in the top 100 for the whole country. It's 11 miles long, and almost all hills, except for the occasional relatively level stretch. What was amazing to both of us was how difficult it was. We went in understanding that it was an "easy-to-intermediate" trail, but it is actually, I later learned, considered intermediate to advanced skill level.

The work involved in uphill climbing sections is a given. I understood that going in (and as a longtime backpacker and hiker I know all about it). But that was the least of the problem. On downhill stretches, there were (especially in the first five miles) literally many hundreds (if not thousands) of large rocks and tree roots crossing the path, as one is going downhill at great speed.

Apparently experienced mountain bikers just go right over them (or perhaps they try to jump over with at least the front wheel). I can't imagine that, but I'm just a rookie at it; what do I know? It seems to be the case. If so, that would be quite a "rocky" ride -- literally! I've been used to riding ten-speeds for years, and avoiding bumps, let alone pineapple-sized rocks (whole collections of 'em!) and tree roots sticking four inches out of the ground. Maybe it is just a matter of adjusting to the different philosophy of biking involved (cruising over any terrain rather than sticking to always-smooth paths). One might describe it as a cross between going cross-country in a tank, and a rollercoaster.

Besides these hazards, there are the usual trees close to the trail, loose gravel, sand, drop-offs, dips, small pits, and otherwise uneven trail sections. But the downhills with all the obstructions were wild and crazy. I couldn't bring myself to hit these obstacles at full speed. It was completely counter-intuitive to me. Nor did my son ever try to do it. So we were braking a lot and even walking through some of the rougher parts. I wound up walking up all the major uphill portions. My thighs (and heart and lungs) weren't up to that, and I was trying to conserve my energy: not knowing what was still to come up ahead.

In the first rough five-mile section, I actually had three accidents. In the first I sort of lost control and hit some loose gravel, and was trying to avoid both a tree and a drop-off. I went flying off to the right of my bike onto the trail, and scraped my right calf pretty good (but no bleeding) The next two had to do with over-braking. I had real good brakes and so I was using them in all the "crazy" debris-ridden sections. But the trouble was that I could stop (or almost stop) the bike but I couldn't stop myself. I kept goin'! The laws of physics . . .

So, in the second incident I literally went flying over the handlebars (which I had never done in my entire life). Somehow I didn't get too hurt again: only scraping my inner thigh and injuring the lower part of my right hand a bit (I thought it might have been a minor sprain, but it seems not, today). In the third accident I went flying off to the left of my bike this time: happily into a nice little bed of hay that felt just like a mattress, landing flat on my back. That caused no further injury (except maybe to my pride). My son cracked up, seeing me lying there, all sprawled out.

At that point I had some understandable anxiety and wondered if I should have walked some trail instead of doing this "madness." It became a psychological thing of getting back on the bike and overcoming the fear of having had three accidents ("what if I hit a tree next time?"). But I toughed it out (I've never been much of a quitter). We had little choice, anyway, as it was a one-way loop trail. Eventually the trail became a lot smoother overall; not nearly as rugged, and became more enjoyable than "anxious" and frustrating.

There were great hills and curves (some with banks: my favorite parts). When the trail was smooth it was tremendous fun. The downhills were generally very fast and usually with a curve, too. One must watch the trail every second, and a twisty curve (or loose sand or gravel or root or rock) could land one smack dab in the middle of a tree, with just a glance to one side or the other (the scenery was gorgeous: lakes, some fall color, marshes, meadows, lots of woods, one spectacular panoramic view, and hilly terrain everywhere).

Whew! Besides my other injuries, I got blisters on both thumbs and a slightly turned right ankle. I got my shoelace caught in the chain one time, taking out about 8 inches!

This activity is not for the faint of heart, believe me (nor for anyone who cannot react and make decisions lightning quick). If anyone wants to try it, be aware of what is entailed. If this trail is typical, you are in for one huge adventure, with lots of thrills and carnival ride-like sensations. For my money, I don't mind the downhills (I wasn't scared of speed itself) or even the uphills, but the constant rocks and tree roots took the fun out of it when they "wrecked" the downhills.

I will seek out smoother bike trails and try to avoid the "rocky" ones in the future. I guess my preference is sort of in-between conventional paved bike paths and mountain biking. I like a path without any obstructions (as much as possible) but I also like the adventurous nature and more "wilderness" aspects of mountain biking (akin to backcountry hiking but with the thrill of speed). I'll have to be selective, and learn as much as I can about particular trails before I set out again.

I found a very well-filmed video overview of the trail at You Tube. It gives a decent overall picture, though it doesn't adequately convey the speed and challenges of the downhills or difficulty of the climbs (just turn the music down if you don't care for it).

Second Ride: Lakeshore Park (Novi, MI) [16 October 2010]

Now I'm a veteran, with two 11-mile rides "in the can" (at two of the best trails in SE Michigan, by all reports). It was another gorgeous fall day (sunny, about 64, colors at about their peak). We have had a spectacular fall so far in Michigan, with day after day of sunny warm weather. I went alone this time.

Lakeshore Park was quite different from Pontiac Lake. It didn't have the brutal ascents that I don't care for at all, but also (as a result) not many fast and/or long downhills (a lot less elevation variation). It had far fewer rocks, which was fine with me. It did have a lot of roots, but most were quite navigable without too much of a bumpy ride: not huge monsters (Pontiac Lake) that I have no particular desire to ride over. The fun of this track was endless variety and twists and turns. It had little piles of logs here and there to ride over (like a man-made hill). I finally got up enough nerve to do one of 'em and it wasn't bad at all (a lot better than it looks). I also did a few small jumps. There were delightful little swoops, intricate, snakey rides through lovely forests, and several log bridges over a stream.

Little by little I'm gettin' the hang of it. One had to watch the trail even more carefully than usual, because it was covered with fallen leaves and hence harder to detect than the usual dirt (mountain bike trails are very narrow as it is). A pretty deer ran right in front of me at one point (my wife would have loved that!).

A really fun section near the end was a sort of mini-track (a "pump trail"): two small circular runs connected together, of pure (and easy) biking fun: hill after hill a few as high as four feet): all gravel: with no roots or rocks at all, and some very nice banks. Unfortunately I was very tired by then (almost fell off one of the small hills) so I only went around a few times.

There is one brutal descent with a quick second hill, called "The Crater." I took one look at it and decided that I was not up to it yet. The trouble was that it was very rocky going down (deliberately so: man-made piles), and it was a steep hill. I thought I had a fair chance to go flying and break my neck. I waited for several minutes, to watch someone else go down it but the ones who passed by went around it as I did.

It was nonstop adventure, just like the first time. This is what I love (though there are moments . . .). It started today literally within one minute. I hit a very large root sticking straight up (an unusual feature) and went flying forward, skinning both my knees, and scraping my calves. It was my first band-aid for a cut (left knee) that actually bled (historic first, during mountain biking). Thus began another "psychological battle." I went in there quite confident, thinking I would have no falls, after three in my first ride. But this was truly a freak occurrence, and it did turn out to be my only fall all day. I warned the next riders coming through as I put on the bandage, and one of them said he fell in the same spot yesterday (which made me feel better!).

Not that there were not risks and obstacles and challenges all day long! I had to tough it out for about a half hour: "post-fall," till I got my confidence back. The leaves could be slippery at times. I slid on them twice, but didn't lose control. The trees were often very close to the trail, and with twists and turns, they can be tricky to avoid (I was very careful of my speed for this reason). I managed to miss all of 'em, though my shoulder brushed against a tree on one occasion.

My thighs hurt a lot on the ascents, but I think I can tell that my muscles are more toned than last time. Then my right ankle started hurting (a little reminder of a minor injury from my first ride). And my right hand hurt (also a leftover from the previous ride). Then I started hitting some bumps and feeling it in my lower back (traditionally a tender spot and problem for me). Sometimes my heart would be racing and I felt I had to rest. At length I became considerably fatigued. At one point I was so tired when I got off my bike to rest, that I could hardly even walk straight.

The fatigue works on your mind almost like a fall does: you wonder if being overly tired will itself cause an accident. I had several close calls in the last few miles, but I made it: no worse for the wear. On a few occasions I sort of jumped off my bike to avoid falling off (perhaps that is an art worth mastering). I'm very tired now, but it's "good tired." I know I had a great day of outdoor adventure and fall sunshine, and a fantastic muscular and cardiovascular workout. I may go again tomorrow! Gotta see how I feel, though. I'm not gonna push it. One has to respect these trails and one's own limits.

Luther and the "Immaculate Purification": Tao & John Q. Doe Score Some Points In-Between Attacks But Luther & Doe Adopt Blasphemous Semi-Nestorianism

Dr. Christopher Boyd Brown, Assistant Professor of Church History, Boston University


[John Q. Doe's words will be in blue, "Turretinfan's" (my affectionate nickname: "Tao" -- for "The Anonymous One") in red; Martin Luther's in green]

Our anti-Catholic friends won't give up the ghost, having been shown over and over (with tons of documentation) that the consensus of the great majority of Luther scholars (who deal with the subject at all) is that Luther held to the Immaculate Conception in slightly different form (compared to the Catholic dogma), his entire life. A very few (notably the Catholic H. Grisar and Lutheran H. Preuss) are convinced that he changed his mind after 1527.

As always with Luther, his position is seemingly or at least possibly at times self-contradictory. He has a tendency (generally speaking) to vacillate and waffle back and forth. This is a constant problem in interpreting his points of view. Therefore, there is some "dissent" on this issue among a small number of Luther scholars, but the "change" position is a distinctly minority view. See my prior papers:

Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception)

Luther's Belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception: Game-Playing and Head-in-the-Sand Delusions (John Q. Doe and Tim Enloe vs. Much Lutheran Scholarship)

Luther and the Immaculate Conception: More Opinion From (Mostly or All) Non-Catholic Historians and Other Scholars

In any event, there is no ground (in light of the scholarly consensus) for anti-Catholic Reformed Protestants like Doe and Tao to childishly mock Catholics (mainly, Taylor Marshall and myself) who simply agree with the scholars' position on this (many if not most of them Lutheran or otherwise Protestant in affiliation), as is currently taking place in a discussion thread at Doe's Boors All blog.

Doe has been continually revising his original post, about Luther and the Immaculate Conception, which is fine (all good writers revise), but more than a bit hypocritical, insofar as he has been blasting me for years for making any revisions to my papers without specifically noting the changes (implying that such a practice is dishonest and a sort of evasion). He makes a comment near the beginning that is literally a case of projection: far more descriptive of the anti-Catholic Protestant approach to Luther than the Catholic approach:

Contrary to [Taylor] Marshall's blog entry, it is not a clear cut case as to what Luther's view was. Romanists typically ignore anything about Mary that doesn't support Romanist Mariology. The same goes for Luther's Mariology: when Romanists find a Luther tidbit about Mary that seems to support Mariolatry, they run with it, even if other evidence contradicts the evidence they're using.

Doe provides confirmation for something I have been mentioning for years: the belief of Lutheran scholar Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-1973) that Luther held to the Immaculate Conception of Mary:

[T]he only material from Piepkorn on this subject that I know of comes from The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn, (New York: ALPB Books, 1993). This is typically the source Romanists use. . . . on page 289 Piepkorn states:

Yet three years before his death [Luther] was still affirming in print the opinion . . . that through the merits of her Son-to-be the Blessed Virgin was marvelously preserved from the taint of sin from the first moment of her existence as a human being [#13].

footnote #13. Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlect Christi, 1543, Weimar edition, 53,640.

Doe notes an apparent harmless chronological error made by Piepkorn, and then feels fully qualified (with no scholarly credentials whatever) to scold Piepkorn for supposedly hasty conclusions, ridiculously concluding, "Piepkorn's romance with Rome seems to have molded his interpretation of Luther's Mariology." But even Doe, notwithstanding his profound bias and innumerable documented shortcomings in research through the years, had to admit the essential facts of the matter:

Footnote #13 refers to one of Luther's later anti-Jewish writings, not a treatise on Mariology. Luther does not launch into any full discussion of Mary's Immaculate Conception. Luther does state, only in passing that it was necessary for Mary to be a young holy virgin freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost to be the mother of Jesus Christ. This statement comes after argumentation for Mary's perpetual virginity. What the statement from Luther doesn't say, one way or the other, is if Mary lived a completely sinless life.

I thank Doe for bolstering a conclusion that I presented in my first published article: "The Real Martin Luther" (The Catholic Answer, Jan/Feb 1993, 32-37):

The eminent Lutheran theologian Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73), of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, after years of study, confirmed Luther's unswerving acceptance of the Immaculate Conception until his death.

It took Doe 17 years to get up to speed (and even then, begrudgingly, and spinning and minimizing as best he can to "soften the blow" of Catholics having been correct on this), but we all learn things sooner or later.

John Q. Doe (to give credit where it is due) does provide a great service in showing where and how Luther waffled and contradicted his own usual position. He cites a 1532 sermon (second sermon on Luke 2:41-52) that he excerpted at length elsewhere; from another web page. Here are the important remarks by Luther (my italics):

32. This should shut the mouths of vain babblers who exalt the holy Virgin Mary and other saints as if they knew everything and could not err; for you can see here how they err and falter, not only in this that they seek Christ and know not where to find him until they accidentally come to the temple, but also that they could not understand these words with which he censured their ignorance and is compelled to say to them: “Knew ye not, that I must be in the things of my Father?” . . .

39. To this we should reply as is taught in this Gospel: Be they called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or any other name, even though they were Mary, Joseph and all the saints it does not follow that they could not have erred and made mistakes. For here you learn that the mother of Christ though she possessed great intelligence and enlightenment, showed great ignorance in that she did not know where to find Christ, and in consequence was censured by him because she did not know what she should have known. If she failed and through her ignorance was brought to such anxiety and sorrow that she thought she had lost Christ, is it a wonder that other saints should often have erred and stumbled, when they followed their own notions, without the guidance of Scripture, or put their own notions into Scripture.

[I dealt with a similar misguided argument about Mary and young Jesus in the temple, that also appeared on Doe's blog, Boors All]

46. You say further: Yea, the church and the fathers were endowed with the Holy Spirit, who kept them from error. The answer to this is not difficult: The church and councils may have been ever so holy, they did not have the Holy Spirit in greater measure than Mary, the mother of Christ, who was also a member, yea, at the time, the most eminent member of the Church. And although she had been sanctified by the Holy Spirit; yet he permitted her at times to err, even in the important matters of faith. From this it does not follow, that the saints, who were endowed with the Spirit, could on this account not err, nor that everything they said would have to be correct. Great weakness and ignorance may be found to exist even in the most eminent people and hence we cannot judge concerning doctrines and matters of faith on the basis of personal holiness, for all this can fail. But here you come to the Word of God which is sure and infallible, where you shall certainly find Christ and the Holy Spirit, and can be and remain firmly fortified against sin, death, and the devil.

Source: Complete Sermons of Martin Luther (Volume 1) [Michigan: Baker Books, 2000] (First Sunday After Epiphany, Volume 1.2, pages 31-53).

In an additional related post, Doe documents many other such instances of a sinful Mary, according to Luther. These are very helpful. This is nothing new, and not unknown to me. I am well aware (as noted above) of Luther's constant tendency towards waffling and vacillation. It is the hallmark of the heretical mindset, and of the formal principle of private judgment. Doe admits this himself in a way (using very different, more neutral terms), when he wrote in his related post of 10-3-10:

It's true, Luther's theology did go through changes, which makes nailing him down sometimes a task in itself. . . . His Mariology went through dramatic changes throughout his career.

Doe also provides very useful lengthier excerpts of a Christmas 1532 sermon from Luther (erroneously thought to be from 1544 by some scholars and myself, following their lead; more on that below):

[H]ow great an honor was conferred upon us in that the Son of God became man; not like Eve nor Adam, who was made of the earth; but He is still more nearly related to us, since He was born of the flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, like other men, except that the virgin was alone, and being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, conceived this blessed fruit without sin and by the Holy Spirit. In other respects He is like unto us, and a natural Son of a woman.

Adam and Eve were not born, but created. God made Adam out of the dust of the earth, and the woman of his rib. How much nearer is Christ to us than Eve to her husband Adam, since He is truly our flesh and blood. Such honor we should highly esteem and well take to heart, that the Son of God became flesh, and that there is no difference at all between His and our flesh, only that His flesh is without sin. For He was so conceived of the Holy Ghost, and God poured out so richly His Holy Spirit into the soul and body of the Virgin Mary that without any sin she conceived and bore our Lord Jesus. Aside from this, in all other respects, He was like other men; He ate, drank, was hungry, thirsty, cold like other men. Such and similar natural infirmities, which have descended upon us by reason of sin, He, who was without sin, bore and had like unto us, as St. Paul says: "He was made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man."

(Hauspostille of 1544 [House Postil]; sermon from Christmas 1532; from the German WA 52:39; my purple highlighting)

One fully expects to find contradictions within such a mentality as Luther's (and he commits such errors innumerable times). I had already noted this in my 2003 treatise on Luther's Mariology, where I cited Piepkorn himself:

Martin Luther's personal adherence to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (barring two lapses) seems to have been life-long . . .

("Mary's Place within the people of God according to Non-Roman Catholics," Marian Studies 18 [1967]: 46-83; quotation from p. 76)

I also mentioned this conclusion in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (completed in 1996, and published by Sophia Institute Press in 2003). I noted Piepkorn's opinion on p. 206, including the "lapses" in Luther's opinion. So this is nothing new; I knew of it as least as early as 1996: contrary to Doe's confident claims that "Romanists" ignore all anomalies that don't fit in with our biases, with regard to Luther and Mary.

It's also humorous to note that Doe (who fancies himself such a Luther "expert" and master of all available sources) stated that his source for Piepkorn's opinion was "the only material from Piepkorn on this subject that I know of," since I had cited the additional source above in my 2003 paper (that in its original form was a reply to one of Doe's papers) and in the same year in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. In fact, I put the same information from Piepkorn online (citing the same primary source) even earlier than that: in my treatise of 7 June 2001, entitled, The Witness of the Church Fathers With Regard to Catholic Distinctives (see section IX and footnote 240).

He certainly read my 2003 paper at the time; yet here we are seven years later and he is unaware of an important source for an important Lutheran scholar's opinion on Luther's view on Mary's Immaculate Conception.

The same Piepkorn journal paper (as I also noted in my 2003 paper), was cited approvingly ("splendid and learned summary") in footnote 25 (for chapter 11 [p. 157], on p. 249), in the great Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan's book, Mary Through The Ages (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), that has been in my own personal library for years. Thus, the very same person whose Mariological research real (Lutheran) scholar Pelikan describes as "splendid and learned," Doe (with no scholarly credentials whatever) describes as follows:

Piepkorn presents no argumentation or analysis. Why would Piepkorn takes vague statements and put forth strong conclusions? I can only speculate, but Piepkorn had interest in ecumenical dialog with Rome. He was involved for multiple years with Lutheran-Catholic dialogue. . . . Simply consider the errors I located in Piepkorn's view detailed here, and also in this previous entry.

I'll go with Pelikan's opinion, thank you. In my 2003 Internet treatise, I freely noted the dissenting opinion, citing Grisar and Preuss, and Catholic Thomas A. O'Meara, O. P., who regarded the opinion of Luther's later change of mind, "likely, but not certain."

The huge difference between Doe and myself is that I actually respect the work of Lutheran Luther scholars, as well as other Luther scholars (i.e., those of a Christian affiliation other than my own); hence I present their conclusions (whatever they are) and cite them in excruciating detail. This is assuredly not Doe's approach. His modus operandi is the exact opposite: he eagerly utilizes whatever quotes support his position and tries to either ignore or spin and minimize any that do not.

Rather than humbly accept what scholars have concluded, recognizing his place in the overall scheme of things (since he is no scholar at all; just an amateur historian), Doe feels completely competent to judge and even casually dismiss their conclusions, and foolishly assumes that his own (too often unsubstantiated) opinion is on the same level as, or even superior to, that of the scholars.

And so in his latest paper on this issue, from 10-3-10, he continues to pretend that his, amateur, polemics-driven opinion is superior to the consensus of real scholars:

Someone arguing Luther held a lifelong adherence to some form of the immaculate conception- that's simply ignoring the evidence . . .

As opposed to the real scholars, who see some ambiguity, but arrive at fairly firm conclusions, amateur polemicist Doe, in the same post, makes out that it is almost impossible to determine Luther's view, by describing a minor piece of data as "another sparse clue to add to the mystery."

At times Doe does produce something worthwhile (as I have happily noted in this paper, several times): he'll find some obscure but highly relevant Luther quotes that help fill out the factual historical picture. For example, in his latest paper he does, commendably, at least present another (or another version of the same?) 1532 sermon from Luther (often the Waffle-King), where he takes the position he usually did:

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are . . . For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person.

(Martin Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, ed. John Nicholas Lenker. [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996], 291)

This exhibits the common notion of that time, of a "first" and "second" conception, because it was believed that the soul didn't enter the body at biological ("first") conception, but later ("animation"). That issue has been addressed several times in my other papers on the topic and I need not reiterate it.

Ironically, even while Doe provided a useful source, he introduced it with a typically sloppy and literally blasphemous, heretical (Nestorian-tending) statement (that goes beyond even Luther's own dubious statements along the same lines:

Rather than discussing Mary’s sinlessness, Luther's later writings insist Christ’s sinlessness was due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during conception.

Let's take a closer look at this remarkable and outrageous statement. "Christ's sinlessness" is "due entirely" to the "work of the Holy Spirit"? Really? Maybe I'm naive (being merely an unregenerate, totally depraved "Romanist"), but I always thought that Jesus didn't need the "work" of anyone (let alone another Person of the Godhead Who is His equal) to produce His sinlessness. He was sinless because He is God; period.

He was impeccable. God does not and cannot sin. He can't contradict Himself. Jesus was God; therefore He could not possibly sin and had not the slightest sin in Him at any time. And this remains true in His incarnate state as well. Just because He also had a human nature alongside His Divine Nature does not mean that, therefore, there is some need to purge Him from sin.

This was the Nestorian heresy: making Jesus out to be too much towards fallen man, in the sense that He suffered from the temptations and concupiscence that we suffer from (think of the blasphemous movie, The Last Temptation of Christ). But according to Doe, who shows himself a rather poor, uninformed theologian, this sinlessness that is intrinsic to God the Son was "due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during conception."

In other words, God (the Holy Spirit) had to do something (indeed, a miracle!) to make God (the Son) sinless at His conception / incarnation; otherwise, God (the Son) would have sinned (or inherited original sin, or some "pollution" therefrom). His sinlessness was "due entirely" to that work. This is a blasphemous outrage: now Doe is even attacking our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in describing (with seeming approval) what he believes Luther's view to be.

This sadly illustrates something we Catholics have been observing for years: the Mariological doctrines are always Christocentric: they are meant to uphold Jesus Christ's deity / divinity / Godhood. Mary herself always points to Christ. Therefore, it works the same in reverse: when someone wishes to attack and denigrate and spread falsehood about the Blessed Virgin Mary (in this case, about her Immaculate Conception), then (by this same logic) they often end up attacking God (Jesus) as well: since the very purpose of the Immaculate Conception in the overall scheme of things is to uphold Jesus' Godhood. So here is Doe attacking our Lord Jesus as well as His mother: the Mother of God.

Catholics, for our part, do not actually believe that the Immaculate Conception was absolutely necessary in order for Jesus to "remain God" or to be born as a Man. We think it was fitting or appropriate, but not intrinsically necessary, for the simple reason that Jesus is God and cannot be made lower than God. I have written about this, too. Sadly, Doe committed this terrible error a second time, too, in his latest paper on this topic:

In my opinion, 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, again, closet Nestorianism at best, and outright blasphemy at worst. And if Luther held the view, then he was guilty of the same. Some evidence (analyzed near the end of this paper) suggests that he did.

Jesus does not have "non-sinful flesh and blood" because God sanctified Mary. The very notion is an impossible blasphemy from the outset! Jesus can't inherit original sin in any sense because He is not a created man. Adam and Eve were God's creations, and they decided to rebel against God, and hence fell, and original sin has been with us ever since. Jesus, being God and the Creator: against Whom the outrage of the fall occurred, was never part of that in the first place, nor could He ever be. The fall is a spiritual rebellion of (created, finite) man against God.

The Bible teaches that "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22; RSV). Since Jesus wasn't "in" Adam; wasn't part of the corporate rebellion of man against God, He didn't fall in the first place, and He can't be made to "fall" nor can He be subject to original sin (He is the solution to the problem, not part of it). It's simply impossible for that to take place with relation to God Himself. Jesus is impeccable.

If Jesus became more holy or wasn't subject to sin (the thoughts are outrageous), simply because of Mary (His own creature), then that would place Mary higher than God; the stream would be higher than its source. And that fits into the silly anti-Catholic caricatures of what is falsely believed about Mariology. This is the root of the problem.

We believe precisely the opposite: Mary is who she is because God willed her to be so. Her grace comes from God, not vice versa. Yet Doe thinks Luther thought (and appears to agree) that if God didn't sanctify Mary, somehow God the Son Himself would end up partaking in "sinful flesh and blood". It's an absolute outrage.

Does Doe actually think it is necessary somehow for Jesus Christ to be Who He is (i.e., in his caricatured understanding of what he mistakenly thinks Catholic Mariology is about)? That has never, in fact, been the case. In Pope Pius IX's proclamation of the dogma in 1854 (Ineffabilis Deus), this sort of blasphemous, Nestorian thought is completely absent. Rather, Catholics believe that Mary's Immaculate Conception was appropriate, or "fitting." Hence, in the proclamation we find statements like (my italics):

And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent.

. . . she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.

They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

John Bugay, the prolific contributor to Doe's Boors All blog (more than even Doe himself recently), showed that he (along with Tao) understands at least something about the notion of "fittingness." He cited the first paragraph above from 1854, and concluded:

For some background, see first of all, Turretinfan's article on "fittingness" as a kind of standard by which "fittingness" counts as part of this "elevation to divine revelation". . . . It truly would be "fitting" if Scripture actually saw it as "wholly fitting" that Mary should "be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness." But Scripture does not see Mary that way. (9-15-10)

Bugay cross-references Tao's article, "Scripture or 'Fitness' - Two Standards Compared." (9-9-10) Yet Doe wants to act as if what we (and Luther) regard as "fitting" is necessary, lest Jesus Christ Himself fall into sin? It looks like one of three choices apply:

1) Doe and Luther are both Nestorian blasphemers.

2) Doe isn't, but Luther is (i.e., he is describing Luther's heretical Christological views that he himself disagrees with).

3) Luther isn't, but Doe is (i.e., he is incorrectly describing Luther's views and in so doing, projecting and revealing his own heretical Christological errors).

In my opinion, #1 appears to be the most likely scenario, though the matter of degree for both remains to be determined (and though both #2 and #3 remain conceivable possibilities). I would be delighted to be wrong about that. None of the three options are a happy outcome, as either Luther or Doe or both wind up being serious Christological heretics. Luther did definitely show some tendency in this direction elsewhere, especially in his false opinions about Jesus being tortured in hell.

John Calvin exhibited relatively more of this strain of heretical thought (I critiqued some of it in his Institutes, IV: 17:24-28). Since Doe is a Calvinist, he may be exhibiting some of that quasi-Nestorian influence and applying it tpo Luther (rightly or wrongly).

Having learned nothing whatever from the above analysis (he has certainly read it by now), Doe astonishingly commits the error a third time, in his 10-3-10 post on the topic:

Luther never abandons the idea that something had to happen to Mary in order to insure the sinlessness of Christ.

He actually made a similar statement a fourth time in his latest related post, from 10-4-10, but I was only able to read it, before responding, and had to do some other work for a few hours. When I came back to working on this again, he had already modified it. At least this shows that he has some awareness that he is treading on dangerous Christological ground.

Unfortunately, he hasn't seen fit to abandon his earlier three dubious statements. It's simple enough for him to distance himself from Luther, if Luther is spewing heresy here. But Doe shows no inclination to do so, even in the face of serious charges of possible heresy and blasphemy. He simply resents the fact that I have had the displeasure of pointing out that he is committing these errors.

I strongly urge anyone reading this, who knows that this is Christological error, and who knows John Q. Doe (preferably a scholar or pastor) -- someone whom he will respect and listen to -- to plead with him to forsake this terrible heresy. Doe even goes so far as to mock those who do take Luther scholarship seriously and who deign to "review the literature" (a standard scholarly practice):

There's one Romanist [referring to me] who thinks simply doing a scholarly head count (which scholars think Luther believed in the immaculate conception, and which do not) is the means of determining Luther's view. This isn't my way of determining truth.

Doe wasn't even content to let it lie there, but embarrassed himself further in the combox for the current paper, after safely deleting all of my comments in the same place, that I preserved in one of my earlier papers ("I've cleaned up the thread-I've deleted quite a number of comments" -- 9-30-10):

I can't figure some Romanists out- they don't seem to care what the context says. A hanging quote is not sufficient proof. (10-1-10)

I've said this before- the way Romanists read Luther guarantees I'll never have a shortage of material to write about. They snatch quotes from here and there, never reading the context. (10-1-10)

To simply post a bunch of one liners culled from a book serves as proof some Romanists don't really care anything about going deep into history. (10-1-10)

Please... you guys can't be serious in thinking a batch of quotes without a context proves something? Well, it proves to me some Romanists don't care about history. (10-1-10)

To make things worse, the notorious anti-Catholic Reformed polemicist Tao (a man so lacking in credentials and credibility that he is afraid to even utter his real name on the Internet, and who eccentrically wears a mask [!!] in public debates) decided to chime in. He started out by urging Doe to delete any and all of my comments (which Doe happily did):

Why hasn't Dave been deleted yet? . . . as usual, he contributes nothing of value to the dialog. (9-30-10)

Ironically, this suggestion came at the same time that Tao and a fellow anti-Catholic were trolling a thread on my blog and being thoroughly obnoxious (and I did delete the trolling comments, as any blogmaster is perfectly justified in doing). But he wants all of mine deleted at Boors All (even when the same friend mentioned above suggested that they be allowed to stay up). To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Double Standard, thy name is Anti-Catholic." Tao displayed his huge double standard in a comment on my blog, exactly a week before the one above:

Dave: I see you are continuing your policy of deleting comments you can't handle. (9-23-10)

I have documented elsewhere Doe's own gigantic hypocrisy in the matter of bannings and deletions of comments.

Tao responded to three Luther citations that I posted in the thread, taken from the end of my first (2003) paper on the topic (and documented there):

1540: "In his conception all of Mary's flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained . . . Each seed was corrupt, except that of Mary."

1544 [later shown to be 1532]: "God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins."

1545: ". . . the pure Virgin Mary, who has not sinned and cannot sin for ever more."

These (along with all other comments of mine) had been deleted from the combox, but someone else referred to them and so Tao replied (on 9-30-10). Tao was courteous enough to at least provide them on his own site. About one thing he was correct: "With respect to the third quotation, it relates to acts of sin, not to original sin." Technically, he is right. The quote is consistent with a belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception (since actual sinlessness flows from it), and I think it plausibly suggests it, but is not proof of it.

The second quotation, from "1544" (actually, originally from 1532, as both Doe and Tao have now shown), is also, I agree, "borderline," strictly speaking. I believe it could be interpreted either way. It's consistent with the Immaculate Conception but ambiguous enough to not make the fuller hypothesis a solid or indisputable interpretation. Tao writes of it:

With respect to the middle one, I would want to see more context before I concluded anything from it. As it stands it could conceivable [sic] be part of a passage in support of the IC view, but it certainly doesn't mention original sin with any specificity.

I agree. It's remarkable enough that Tao concedes that it "could" possibly be a supporting passage for a view that Luther thought Mary was immaculately conceived. As noted briefly above, both of our anti-Catholic friends are trying to make great hay out of the fact that what I produced as a 1544 citation actually dates from 1532. Good for them. If that is the best "silver bullet" that they have, then it is hardly a major "victory." Tao wrote in his post about it:

That citation is actually to a sermon from 1532. Although WA 52 is titled "Hauspostille 1544," that is Luther's "House Postils" published in 1544, but containing mostly sermons from the first half of the 1530's. Luther did assent to having the sermons published, but the work was earlier work. Specifically, Veit Dietrich published these sermons based on Veit Dietrich's sermon notes, with Luther's assent (see discussion here). This particular sermon was apparently first publicly preached in 1532 and then again in 1533, according to the index in WA 52.

Good detective work. I commend them. Like I said, occasionally Doe and other anti-Catholics do produce something of value, amidst all of their usual mud and more. After all, even an unplugged clock is right twice a day. My mistake is certainly an understandable and perfectly innocent, honest one, even based on the information seen above. I deduced the 1544 date from not one scholar, but two, in my 2003 paper: Thomas A. O'Meara (as Doe correctly notes in his latest paper) and also Catholic scholar Hilda Graef, who wrote:

He seems to have given up this belief later on, though he held even in 1544, two years before his death, that she was completely without sin when she conceived the Lord Jesus. [WA, 52,39]

(Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, Vol. II: New York: Sheed & Ward, 1965, 11)

I took both statements together and concluded that the date was 1544. Mea culpa. But (here's a bit of trivia) I actually discovered that the 1532 sermon was found in a collection from 1544, in my last paper on the topic, written before I saw either of my opponents' discoveries about the date. Luther scholar Beth Kreitzer, had in one of her footnotes: "Hauspostille 1544 (Christmas, 1532)."

The paper that included this information was posted on my site on Thursday, 9-30-10 (at 11:48 PM EST, to be precise). Doe's paper with his big "revelation" was posted on 10-2-10, as was Tao's post. On 9-30-10, in a combox comment directly responding to my posting of the "1544" (i.e., 1532) Luther citation, Tao shows no evidence of knowing that it was from the earlier date. That was something he (or Doe) discovered in the next two days.

But so had I, before either of them did. Sorry, guys, to beat you to the punch . . . It's necessary to note things like this, because both of these men are quick to accuse others of lying, and trying to deliberately fudge facts.

As we've seen in this paper, above, and more so below, Doe's errors are of a much more serious nature, up to and including (not just once, but three times) blasphemy about how Jesus supposedly became sinless, with the gracious help of His fellow member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. If my biggest error is reporting a wrong date based on what two scholars stated (and then discovering the error before they did), then I'm not doing that bad at all! Doe near the end of the paper takes a swipe with the following marvelous piece of the King's English:

I seriously about the use quotes haphazzardly.

Right. No doubt this will be corrected after he reads this [it was removed], but that is how his original read (I couldn't make up anything so silly). And the correct spelling is, by the way, "haphazard." Apologetics is, I confess, a very hazzardous business . . . one can even be deemed as suffering from serious psychological problems and in dire need of therapy (as Doe has repeatedly stated about me).

Given Doe's propensity to repeatedly assert that I am nuts and unstable, "erratic," "wacko," "psychotic" (later retracted, but without apology) and similar descriptions, and innumerable remarks that I am, in effect, a dumbbell and an idiot; a dishonest and incompetent researcher, over the last eight years, it rings a bit hollow and hypocritical when he now complains (writing to my friend, Paul Hoffer):

. . . you have a wide range of meaning for the word "civil" as applied to Roman Catholic apologetics. I invite you to compare and contrast my recent entries and comments (and TFan's) to those put forth by your friends. (10-4-10)

It's true that my language was initially too hostile. I freely confess that these two men and their ongoing shenanigans drive me nuts, and I have never suffered folly easily. I went back and took a lot of that language out of this paper, and I am happy to extend my apology to Mr. Doe and Mr. Tao for any transgressions on my part along those lines. So I have retracted, removed material, and apologized.

Doe later read the sincere apology in the previous paragraph, but, as usual, with him, did not accept it, and virtually mocked it and distorted the meaning of it altogether with a sort of hyper-cynical spin (meanwhile, he makes no retractions nor apologies at all of anything he has been lately writing at my expense):

An odd sort of apology was offered for the hostility directed toward myself & Tfan. But according to the reasoning, it was our fault because our "shenanigans" drive him "nuts." So, I guess we're ultimately responsible for the abuse directed toward us. In other words, I cause the abuse directed toward me. Well, that clears things up. (10-4-10)

This is just a small sampling of the mud your side threw at me this time, and then has the audacity to offer some reluctant apology which blames me for causing their insults because of my "shenanigans." (10-5-10)

He just doesn't get it. What a pity. This is very curious logic. Anyone who thinks about human interaction and conflict at all knows that in virtually any conflict there is precipitating cause and provocation, and not unilateral blame. We're all sinners (unless Doe and Tao claim to be exceptions). That is the case here. There is fault on both sides, but there is also usually differential (as opposed to equal) blame. In any event, I didn't reason as Doe is doing now: I made the apology and simply noted that they "drive me nuts."

That is not an excuse; I didn't say it was the entire cause (he merely read that into it), but it is relevant to understand my reactions at times, too, as a normal human being who has a limit of patience. When I wrote, "I have never suffered folly easily" that was a statement much more about myself: this is a fault of mine. If I had thought it was all their fault, and not at all mine, why would I bother to make the apology at all?

This is what is so silly about such speculations. Most normal human beings realize that an apology is sincere, and also that the one making the apology often can explain why he committed the error: not all explanation is excuse-making or rationalization.

But one of the big problems of the anti-Catholic fundamentalist mindset is lack of understanding of the subtleties and nuances of language and of interaction of human beings and ideas alike. And I think that almost anyone could see a great example of why they drive me nuts in this very example: how my apology was received (I can hardly say "accepted"), and the other denigrating remarks that Doe constantly makes.

Doe and Tao have been very careful to appear (relatively) "scholarly" and objective" in their latest offerings (though not completely so, by any means), and so Doe appeals to that, as if it proves that there is not a long history on his part, of rank insults and ad hominem garbage. There is (trust me!).

As just a few examples among countless ones, of Doe's extreme condescension and contempt, where I am concerned, here are some "editorial" remarks (mostly written on Lutheran Edward Reiss' blog): all since removed by him, but -- typically -- with neither public retraction nor apology. Note especially the patronizing use of quotation marks:

Dave, I'm sure you would very much appreciate it if I didn't look up the quotes you mishandle and put them back in their proper context. Indeed, I don't take you seriously as a "professional" apologist, and yes, your behavior is a bit bizarre at times. Your "work" though, finds an audience, so unless I stop coming across Romanists linking me back to you, I'll keep looking up your "research." You've put forth enough bogus "research" to keep me busy for a long time, if I so choose. (2-26-10)

Once again, we see an evasion of context. DA still won't address his own "research" or lack thereof. . . . If anyone is presenting shoddy review of history, it's Armstrong and those like him. (2-26-10)

[A]s I've stated repeatedly while I think you're wacky, other people take you seriously. (2-27-10)

I explained earlier your eratic [sic] behavior, particularly on my blog, lead [sic] me to question whether or not you needed help. . . . That you won't answer simple questions about context really does make one question your honesty. (2-27-10)

There is a reason why I've often said I don't take his work seriously. That is, when I read it, I know I'm not getting the insights of someone looking honestly or in-depth at an issue involving Luther. (3-1-10)

I’ve repeatedly said that others do take you seriously, so I critique your “work”- . . . Part of looking over your “work” and commenting on it is nothing else than showing why you shouldn’t be taken seriously. . . . I don’t know you in person, nor am I trained in psychology, so I can’t know for sure if you have serious problems. . . . If you do indeed have some sort of disorder, my error in the matter was pointing it out publicly. . . . I’ll renounce the statement from Edward’s blog, “nice example of your psychosis” or whatever I said. That’s the best I can do Dave. . . . If you’d like me to renounce that I questioned your state, I wouldn’t be being honest. If you want me to concede I have no basis for my own opinion about you, I can’t do that either. . . . Questioning your state is not the same thing as saying “This is your state.” . . . And you think this is acting like a “Christian”? If your behavior of post and delete - vow and unvow is what Romanism is all about, that is yet another reason why I’ll never be a Roman Catholic. (4-18-10; various combox comments on his own blog; all now [ironically, given his statements] deleted)

All this past baggage from his often acid "pen" (along with his present policy of systematic deletion of every comment I dare to make in reply on his blog), yet Doe is now crying in his beer, waxing paranoid, and acting as if I am the big bad meanie because I object to both his ad hominem attacks and his poor research:

I must admit, the vile polemical attacks launched against us don't serve the Romanist cause well. As I scroll through some of the entries and comments from your camp, I'm disheartened by the absolute disdain for anything I put forth. Even those statements I put forth deemed helpful or correct are bathed in disdain and disgust for my very being. It's almost as if they hate the fact my hours of research produce helpful results. . . . I think those on your side are much more interested in attempting to make me look bad more than they are in determining the truth on this subject. Their words toward me are soaked in bitterness, revealing their true motivation on this issue. (10-4-10)

Your friends were out to destroy me, once and for all, and failed. It was personal on their end. (10-5-10)

Contrary to Doe's growing Captain Queeg-like paranoia, I have nothing against either man personally ("disgust for my very being," etc.). I don't get into that. Life is too short and personal resentment and detestation is a serious sin. I simply object to Doe's and Tao's lousy argumentation, bad logic, and pretensions to being some sort of "scholars" when they are not. Whether the above personal criticisms sent in my direction are "personal" or not, the reader may judge.

Now; leaving Doe's relentless insults and oversensitivity and getting back to the topic at hand, there is further "late" historical evidence of Luther's belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, from Luther's 1543 work, Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi, that was mentioned by Luther scholars as corroborating evidence (as noted in my 2003 paper), but without direct citation. After more research, I have located the relevant citation, in English (in three versions):

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]

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

(Bridget Heal, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Early Modern Germany: Protestant and Catholic Piety, 1500-1648 [Cambridge University Press: 2007], p. 59)

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]

[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.

(Beth Kreitzer, Reforming Mary: Changing Images of the Virgin Mary in Lutheran Sermons of the Sixteenth Century [Oxford University Press: 2004], p. 124)

I also ran down, myself, a third English translation:

". . . a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost . . ."

(Gerhard Falk, The Jew in Christian Theology: Martin Luther's Anti-Jewish Vom Schem Hamphoras [McFarland & Co.: 1992], p. 217)

Thus, we have three English translations of the 1543 utterance (take your pick), with the German thrown in for good measure:

Falk (1992): "a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost"

Kreitzer (2004): "saved and purified from original sin through the Holy Spirit"

Heal (2007): "a holy virgin, who was saved and purified from Original Sin by the Holy Ghost"

All three mention original sin, so there is no doubt that Luther had it in mind. Therefore, Luther stated that Mary was purified from original sin in 1543, three years before his death. The only question that scholars debate is the exact time that Luther thinks this occurred. I think the evidence from 1544 conclusively shows that Luther believed (at that time) that it was at or near Christ's conception. But if Tao wants a "late" Luther quote that will "mention original sin with any specificity," then this fits the bill: from 1543.

Tao goes on to provide (in a comment on 10-2-10) a fuller context for the 1545 Luther quote that is mentioned in this regard (my purple coloring added):

What is the use of spending such great pains and effort on a council if the pope has decided beforehand that anything done in the council should be subjected to him, that nothing should be done unless it pleased him very much, and that he wants the power to condemn everything? To avoid all this trouble it would be better to say, “Most Hellish Father, since it makes no difference at all what is or will be decided before or in or after the council, we would rather (without any council) believe in and worship Your Hellishness. Just tell us beforehand what we must do; “Good Teacher, what shall I do?” [ Mark 10:17 ]. Then we shall sing the glad hymn to Your Hellishness, “Virgin before, in, and after childbearing,”  since you are the pure Virgin Mary, who has not sinned and cannot sin for ever more. If not, then tell us, for God’s sake, what need or use there is in councils, since Your Hellishness has such great power over them that they are to be nothing, if it does not please Your Hellishness. Or prove to us poor, obedient “simple Christians”  whence Your Hellishness has such power. Where are the seals and letters from your superior that grant such things to you? Where is written evidence which will make us believe this? Won’t Your Hellishness show us these things? Well then, we shall diligently search for them ourselves, and with God’s help we shall certainly find them shortly.”

(LW [Luther's Works] 41:263-264; further sourced to an earlier Doe paper in response to me).

Tao opines:

As you can see, the comment is one that is made in the midst of a rhetorical and sarcastic comment directed at the pope. Luther isn't necessarily setting out his own view of Mary any more than he is trying to analyze the pope's view of her. He's simply trying to mock the pope.

And, of course, the conception of Mary isn't in view at all. In other words, even if we assumed that Luther was describing his own view of Mary, it would only describe her sinlessness, not her immaculate conception.

Again, we see that the Romanist who brought this quotation was taking the comment out of context and distorting its meaning.

Doe agrees, stating:

Further, one should ask the Catholic apologist saying things like Luther said “that the Virgin Mary "has not sinned and cannot sin for ever more"” if they know how to read materials in context. It is obvious from the context that Luther’s statement on Mary is highly rhetorical and sarcastic. (12-8-06)

A subject covered in passing is indeed a good reason to go look at the context. Tfan has already posted a great example of this for you, an example I came across quite a few years ago. In LW 41:263-264, Luther’s statement on Mary is embedded in a highly rhetorical and sarcastic statement. Using this reference to substantiate Luther’s lifelong commitment to the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception is quite a stretch. Not only is Luther insulting the pope, he isn’t even in the mode of presenting an explanation of doctrine. He’s using the phrase, “the pure Virgin Mary who has not sinned” as an insult. (10-2-10)

This is thoroughly wrongheaded. Simply because Luther was in one of his frequent mocking, sarcastic moods doesn't mean that the reference to Mary is to be regarded as not indicative of his views. That doesn't follow. It certainly doesn't follow necessarily. In fact, the opposite is far more plausible. The very mocking has to do with Luther saying, in effect, "O, holy pope, so you think you're so pure and holy and infallible; let's mockingly call you, then, the pure, perpetually Virgin Mary, who not only has not sinned, but cannot ever sin."

The Marian doctrines that Luther believes were used to mock the pope, whom, Luther thinks, is exalted far beyond measure; so that he mocks him by comparing him to someone who is indeed exalted. Otherwise, the mocking has no force, if the strong contrast between a sinless person and the pope isn't part of it. We know that Luther did certainly believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary (even in partu); that is disputed by virtually no scholars or anyone else who knows anything about Luther's Mariology. Even Doe doesn't deny that:

[T]he specific Marian doctrines put forth by Rome tend to deify Mary. Thus, I see the extra-biblical doctrines attributed to Mary as nothing other than a violation of the commandment against idolatry. the Scriptures are clear on Mary's lack of perpetual virginity (Matthew 1:18-25).

That being said, I think the Reformers, (Luther and Zwingli) would be an example of people who held to this Marian doctrine and had "an evangelical understanding of the Gospel." But, I think the reason they did hold this belief was the result of a well entrenched tradition, rather than exegesis of the Biblical text. Each generation comes with its own set of non-biblical traditions.

I can cut these guys some slack- because I realize that the paradigm change that Luther and Zwingli went through didn't mean that all of sudden they were evangelicals with little fish pins on their jackets, and bumper stickers on their horses. Rooting out unbiblical traditions takes time. (19 January 2007)

Therefore, if Luther uses the example of her perpetual virginity in the course of mocking, and we know that he literally believed that (with Doe begrudgingly conceding the point, with pathetic spin), then it is likely that he also believed in Mary's sinlessness, if not her Immaculate Conception, by analogy. The majority of Luther scholars hold that he continued to believe the latter (i.e., in its essentials: more on that below), up to his death (with a few exceptions of earlier statements, as noted). But Doe (as of 10-3-10) remains unimpressed with this rather straightforward logic, in his reply to my friend Paul Hoffer:

With your legal skill, I find it hard to believe you would think the 1545 statement said by Luther in bitter sarcasm has any definitive weight affirming adherence to the immaculate conception. Luther many times chastised the Romanists for Mariolatry and making saints into idols.

Let's now take a look at how Tao interprets the relevant 1540 Luther quotation. Here I think our esteemed brethren in Christ (who deny that I am a Christian) fare much better than their arguments concerning the 1545 citation:

Let me take the first example:

1540: "In his conception all of Mary's flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained . . . Each seed was corrupt, except that of Mary."

"His conception" refers to Jesus' conception, not Mary's. Mary's seed is Jesus. Joachim & Anna's seed was Mary. This quotation from 1540, therefore, stands opposed to the dogma of the IC.

The reference to "purified" is a reference to the flesh that Jesus took from Mary. Again, that reference shows that Mary was not pure and consequently the flesh taken from her had to be purified. Had Mary been preserved from all taint of sin, she (i.e. her flesh) could not have been purified any more than one can remove inclusions from a flawless stone. (9-30-10)

I think that after further evidence from Luther's opinion in 1543-1544 was brought forth by Doe and Tao (dealt with below), that explicitly tied in the timing of this event at Christ's conception, it is more plausible to interpret this as referring to Christ's conception, not Mary's. Thus, I have changed my mind about the 1540 statement from "leaning to its meaning Mary's conception" to "most likely Christ's conception," based on the explicit 1544 evidence and a comparison of similar Luther utterances. I thank our two friends for bringing this additional information to the fore. More good "detective work." It is very helpful to clarify the "late Luther views."

In other words, I think Tao is right with regard to whose conception Luther referred to in 1540. But when he says, "This quotation from 1540, therefore, stands opposed to the dogma of the IC," well, yes and no. If we mean the dogma as it is believed by the Catholic Church, and the timing of God's special act of grace, yes, but if we mean "removal of original sin," which is the essence and heart of the doctrine, then he did not deny it. I discuss this at some length near the end of this paper.

Luther never believed that the act occurred at Mary's conception, because he originally thought it occurred at ensoulment, which he separated from conception (as most people still did in the late Middle Ages). So the timing in his view was always different; it simply shifted from the time of ensoulment, to the time of Christ's conception (or, as some think, possibly in the interim period). The common ground in his views is the removal of original sin: whenever it happened.

Later (10-2-10), Tao provides a fuller context, with a citation that was word-for-word the same as what I had in my 2003 paper (my purple emphasis):

Every man is corrupted by original sin and has concupiscence. Christ had neither concupiscence nor original sin. Therefore he is not a man: Response: I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person [personaliter Deus], as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and 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."

. . . this text actually proves the very opposite of what the Romanist had cited it for.

The source of this fuller citations (that omits the "his") is from Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ (February 27, 1540); "translated from the Latin text WA 39/2,.92-121" by Christopher B. Brown, and available online (see also a much snazzier PDF version). "His" is not in this translation because (presumably) it wasn't in the original (it is definitely not in the later German version). Above, Tao was citing my own use of Eric W. Gritsch's 1992 translation.

Some translations insert it, probably on the basis of concluding that the meaning is referring to Christ's conception rather than Mary's (and so clarifying that with the addition). Without the "his" it appears to be most plausibly referring to Mary's conception. With it, it appears to refer to Christ's. It is an added word, but I now think that immediate context and the context of related Luther statements justifies the interpretive inclusion. Another scholar, Dr. Bonnie Noble, adds input to the discussion with a third rendering:

Mary's flesh and blood was purified in [his] conception, so that nothing sinful remained.

[footnote 61] My translation of [German then provided; accessible from Google Books] . . . (Disputation on the Humanity of Christ [1540, originally in Latin]; Tappolet, Marienlob, 32; WA, vol. 39, part 2, p. 107, lines 4-13).

(Lucas Cranach the Elder: Art and Devotion of the German Reformation [University Press of America: 2009], p. 178; footnote 61 from p. 194)

We know that Latin was the original language of Luther's treatise, since Noble states this, and Brown also translated from Latin. Both mention the same source of that: "WA" (Weimar Ausgabe: the standard German edition of Luther's works), vol. 39. Latin is, therefore, the most primary source. The German version came later.

But it is not impossible that Luther was referring to Christ's conception, either, since it is possible that he was following a certain line of thought that St. Thomas Aquinas had expressed almost three centuries earlier:

Reply to Objection 3. The Holy Ghost effected a twofold purification in the Blessed Virgin. The first was, as it were, preparatory to Christ's conception: which did not cleanse her from the stain of sin or fomes, but rather gave her mind a unity of purpose and disengaged it from a multiplicity of things (Cf. Dionysius, Div. Nom. iv), since even the angels are said to be purified, in whom there is no stain, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi). The second purification effected in her by the Holy Ghost was by means of the conception of Christ which was the operation of the Holy Ghost. And in respect of this, it may be said that He purified her entirely from the fomes.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 27: "The Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin," Article 3: "Whether the Blessed Virgin was cleansed from the infection of the fomes?")

[later note: the above two paragraphs were in my paper before I changed my mind about the 1540 quote; hence it is seen that my position wasn't absolute on this, and I allowed the possibility of the other scenario being the fact of the matter: as indeed I am now persuaded is the actual state of affairs. The main shortcoming in Doe's and Tao's argument was putting too much stock in the interpolated "his": the best argument is cross-referencing to the Lectures on Genesis (38) from 1544, and other similar statements; this was persuasive in my case, in any event]

We do also know, however, that although Luther scholar Eric Gritsch includes the "his" in his rendering, he does not go on to deny (or even doubt) that Luther accepted the Immaculate Conception of Mary his entire life, since he is on record in a 1992 book (in footnote 43, p. 382), stating:

But Tappolet . . . 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 [immaculate conception of Mary], but did not consider it necessary to impose it.

Thus, he doesn't see this particular quote, even if it is referring to the conception of Christ, as a slam dunk against his position at all. He sees no conflict.

I changed my mind, after several insinuations from Doe and Tao that I and other Catholics would be reluctant to do so. Thus Tao wrote, after presenting the "new" 1544 information:

I suspect that one of the detractors will immediately retreat to logically invalid appeals to authority, counting the noses of "scholars" who have thought that Luther maintained the IC view. (10-4-10)

Well, that ain't what I did, was it? Steve Hays, a friend of botj Tao and Doe, and also an active online anti-Catholic Reformed polemicist (who has characterized me as "evil", of "evil character" and "schizophrenic"), chimed in as well:

While you're [sic] detractors ought to recant, the dwarfs are for the dwarfs (as C. S. Lewis would say), so Roman dwarfism will likely triumph over reason and evidence. (10-4-10)

I changed my mind. I didn't have to "recant" because I wasn't dogmatic on the issue of timing, anyway, as I noted not far above. This is why I provided the quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, because it was always a possibility. This is what the mind who cares about truth and that weighs evidence does, after all. But Doe and Tao have been insinuating constantly that I don't care about truth. So it is quite odd that I changed my mind and wasn't too proud to admit it, isn't it?

Doe, exasperated and/or at wit's end, and thinking that I would never be persuaded of anything, played the inevitable "Armstrong and other wascally, dastardly Catholic apologists hate Luther" card:

Romanists typically abhor Luther. When it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. In other words, he becomes an apologetic pawn: Luther believed in sola scriptura and distinct Romanist Marian attributes, so should you. (10-4-10)

I'm sure I've probably put forward arguments from authority, like "this Roman Catholic scholar said this or that..." I normally do it to show the disharmony of Romanism, or the gulf between Romanist pop-apologetics and Roman Catholic scholarship. . . . The Luther apologetic used by Romanists though is really a beast of their own creation. Here's a guy many of them despise, unless of course he says something similar to Romanism. That is, even though many of them despise him, he's still serve [sic] as an apologetic tool to promote Romanism. (10-4-10)

The trouble is that everyone knows I am his main opponent in this discussion, and this is not my attitude at all; never has been. I have made it abundantly clear that it is not. This is no "argument from authority" either; it is simply an interesting discussion about Church history: an instance of a definite overlap between Catholic dogmas and current-day Protestantism (of great interest to me because of my love of history of ideas and history of Christian doctrine). The early Protestants are extremely interesting in this regard: especially their Mariology.

Nor do I "abhor" or hate Luther. I've reiterated my opinion of him many times, and surely Doe has read some of that (but he always seems to have a very short and selective memory, where I am concerned). Even Tao (in a very rare defense of anything having to do with me) recognizes that I am not "anti-Luther." He wrote on a Lutheran web page (and this citation -- for a change -- has not been removed):

One other thing I should point out in Dave's defense. He has, if I recall correctly, previously responded to some of the most extreme anti-Lutheran garbage out there. So, while he's clearly on the other side of the Tiber from Luther, one should not conclude that his errors in scholarship are somehow solely the result of malice and ill-will toward Luther. (3-1-10)

This has been patently obvious for years now, so that even one of my severest critics doesn't deny it. Yet Doe is still saying the same silly, stupid thing. On my Luther and Lutheranism web page I have a section entitled "Defenses of Martin Luther Against 'Anti-Luther' Bum Raps." I have seven papers listed there (several quite lengthy). The next section is, "Agreements With, and Commendations of Luther / Fairly Neutral Stance Towards Him." That has 23 papers. So I have more papers defending the man or agreeing with him (30) than most theological websites have about him altogether. In the next section, "Controversies Concerning My Luther Research," I repeatedly argue in at least four papers (one / two / three / four), that I am not "anti-Luther".

It gets extremely wearisome noting this umpteen times, for those persons who can't grasp that (selective) criticism can exist alongside praise and even admiration. I suppose it is projection when an anti-Catholic says this, since it is so utterly obvious how much they despise and detest the Catholic Church , that they casually assume that we Catholics must despise and detest and "hate" and "abhor" Martin Luther: the founder of Protestantism. At times this is true (I have excoriated some Catholics with that attitude, myself), but I have found that usually it is not the case.

Lastly, I have written a book about Martin Luther. I know that Doe has read it because he has reviewed parts of it on several occasions. The introduction is available online (per my usual custom for all my books). And in that introduction I state:

Lastly, the reader may wonder (in all fairness) about my own personal opinion (as a committed orthodox Catholic, and Catholic apologist) of Martin Luther. I’m happy to comply with such a desire. I disagree with the man’s theology (that is, where he departs from Catholic orthodoxy) and some of the ways in which he went about things. But I do not regard Luther (like many Catholic biographers and critics throughout history) as an essentially “evil” or “bad” man. I don’t deny his good intentions and sincerity at all (though I often question his wisdom and foresight, as will be evident).

I actually admire Martin Luther in many ways. I love his passion and boldness and bravery in standing up for what he believed. I always admire people who do that, unless the stand they take is unquestionably evil. One can respect such a person without necessarily agreeing with the specific cause or belief that he or she espouses. One can be wrong for the right reasons, and right for the wrong reasons.

I go on for three more paragraphs in this fashion. The book itself is devoted in one-third of its pages to "praise" of Luther and areas of agreement with Catholics. That's crystal-clear enough. The problem, however, is that Doe is perfectly capable of concluding that I simply lied about my own opinions, for the purpose of tricky subterfuge and my "Romanist" apologetic aims. Therefore, he won't accept my plain words at face-value, as anyone else without an axe to grind would.

Thus, the dual lies that I supposedly hate Luther and that I refuse to follow truth and evidence where it leads, have both been amply refuted.

Doe is now (on 10-5-10) trying to spin his statements and act as if he didn't intend them to refer to me:

[interacting with my friend Paul Hoffer] My comments about Romanists detesting Luther were general, based on my interactions with people from your side over the years. There are a few like yourself, that do not live on the O'Hare level, I realize this.

Great (progress!). Then why not make it clear, and deny that I, too, am not a Luther-hater? The implication certainly was that I have that view (since I am the main opponent). Otherwise, why bring it up at all? It was obviously an "explanation" for why I didn't immediately agree with everything Doe and Tao were saying. He wants to backtrack, and have his cake and eat it, too. He reserves the right to make the dumb generalization; yet when challenged on particulars, he grants that a person indirectly in the discussion is not "anti-Luther" while refusing to comment on what he thinks my position is (his primary opponent at the moment). This is the posturing of an intellectual coward.

* * *

Doe, in his post of 10-4-10 on the topic, has brought to light a further writing of Luther's that has great bearing on the subject indeed: Luther's Lectures on Genesis (38), from Luther's Works, vol. 7 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House: 1965; edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, and translated by Paul D. Pahl). This offers strong proof that Luther (at this point) was definitely placing the special work of God in freeing Mary from all sin, at the time of Christ's conception, not her own.

The 1540 citation was not totally clear about that (hence scholars have stated that the timing of what he intended was not certain), but there is no such lack of clarity in these remarks, dated somewhere between November 1543 through to 1544. This has caused me to revise my prior inclination in the interpretation of the 1540 comment.

I have maintained all along (for years now), in my writings on the topic, that Luther's position was not identical to the Catholic dogma, so this is no bombshell revelation for me. But it is helpful clarifying evidence for the precise nature of Luther's late position (the vexing question of chronology and timing).

Very few scholars think that Luther agreed with the 1854 Catholic dogma, his whole life (even if it is possible to argue that he nearly did, at the time of his 1527 remarks). Almost all of them have noted the differences, including the "first conception" and "second conception" aspect, and the timing according to Luther. Given Luther's usual waffling and self-contradictions, the subject is more than a little difficult.

These excerpts also have relevance in determining whether Luther exhibited Nestorian tendencies, in how he speaks of our Lord Jesus Christ. Sadly, I have to conclude from this latest bit of troubling evidence that he did exhibit those (though he probably stated otherwise elsewhere: knowing him, so who knows?). To the extent that Doe and Tao agree with what Luther is saying here, they share in the heresy and the blasphemy. If they disagree, they need merely say so and I will gladly acknowledge it.

So far, Doe's own choice of words are clearly problematic, with regard to the Chalcedonian doctrine of the Two Natures and specifically Jesus' impeccability and lack of any relation to the fall of man. Lastly, one could note that there are several related but distinct aspects of the Immaculate Conception:

1) Mary's (actual) sinlessness.

2) The removal of original sin from Mary by a special act of God's grace.

3) When this removal occurred: at Mary's own conception, or at Christ's conception, or some point of time in-between the two (with necessary consideration of the antiquated medieval notion of two conceptions: body and soul; the second being "animation").

Luther waffled the most with regard to #1, saying at times that Mary sinned. But apart from those seemingly anomalous instances (that some scholars, such as Piepkorn, regard as "lapses" from his usual position), he generally taught #1. #1 and #2 are both of the essence of the Immaculate Conception: freedom from original sin and absence of actual sin: both made possible by the reception of God's grace.

Catholics hold that it occurred at her conception (hence the very title), yet it might be argued that the timing of the special act (removal of original sin and restoration to the pre-fall state of Adam and Eve) is not part of the essence of the doctrine, just as the element of when Jesus was born was not at all the essential part of His Incarnation per se: it was the fact that He became Man at all (whenever that blessed event occurred).

#2 is the least disputed point in Luther's mind. He reiterates it in 1540 and 1543, and again, in a different manner, but still most definitely, in the presently considered document, from 1543-1544. #3 is the most complex determination to make: in 1527, Luther believed that the purification or purging occurred at her ensoulment (which he placed later than conception, in accord with the primitive biology of his time). As soon as Mary had both a body and soul, she was freed from original sin by God (which is identical to the Catholic dogma, when expressed in that fashion).

In his 1532 statement, he is vague as to the time of that blessed event. The 1540 statement has some ambiguity (as evidenced by the textual dispute over the inserted word "his"). His 1543 utterance specifically refers to "original sin" but is again vague as to when Mary was purified from it. The nature of what he thought took place was much more clear than when it did.

Thus, this evidence from 1543-1544 is important and quite significant because it refers both to original sin (as a concept if not with those words) and making the timing (in Luther's opinion) clear once and for all (at Christ's conception). Therefore, we may reasonably conclude, I think, that Luther likely gave up his belief that this act of grace in Mary occurred earlier: as soon as she had a soul, sometime after 1527.

In light of all the relevant evidence considered as a whole, I think it would be wise to refer to Luther's post-1527 position in a different manner. I have coined a new term: Immaculate Purification: as seen in my revised title for this post. This preserves the "immaculate" aspect (i.e., removal of original sin) but doesn't place the timing at conception.

Using a different term immediately clarifies that we acknowledge (as most scholars always have) that there are important differences between Luther's view and the Catholic dogma of 1854: though (crucially to the discussion) not essential ones. It decreases the possibility of unhelpful misunderstanding and neglect of the many nuances in this discussion.

Luther continued (most of the time) to assert that Mary was without actual sin, and that she was freed from original sin (the latter being the most constant aspect of his evolving beliefs on the matter). Since those are the two essential elements of the Immaculate Conception (and vastly different from the opinions of almost all Protestants today), then we are quite justified in continuing to say that he held the doctrine "in some form" (as I expressed it in my 2003 paper) until his death: he held to Immaculate Purification. It's not identical to the Catholic position (which wasn't yet a dogma during his lifetime, anyway, so that folks were free to disagree a bit), but it is far closer to the Catholic position than any denominational or creedal Protestant position today.

* * *

The first reactions from the peanut gallery to my change of mind are now in. It was decided to ridicule my evolving thought on the matter in order to try to show a gross contradiction that doesn't exist (as in Doe's 10-5-10 comparison of three of my statements). There was no contradiction (sorry to disappoint, guys, and sorry to bring up fine points of Logic 0101), since I have always acknowledged (at least since 1996 and my first book) that Luther's view was not identical to the Catholic one.

My change of opinion has to do with the degree of difference, and some of the particulars of Luther's later view, which is not a contradiction. As I already noted, I was already saying that the view I take now was a possibility. I was citing scholars who argued the same thing (that I discovered and documented in 2003; Doe and Tao didn't do it). But, eager to show that I am an unstable fool, Doe picked three statements of mine. He wants to pretend that the following past statement is completely contradictory to my present position:

his opinions on the Immaculate Conception, . . . were substantially the same.

The key is the word "substantially" (or, to put it another way, "essentially"). I have argued above (added last night before I ever saw their reactions) that the substance or essence of Luther's views remained the same, insofar as he held that Mary was purified of original sin. That didn't change. That's the essence of the immaculate conception. When it happened is a different issue, but not of its essence.

I granted that continued use of the word "conception" in describing Luther's views is unfortunate and confusing; hence I suggested the use of a new term, "immaculate purification" for his post-1527 position. But none of this means that Luther ever denied (as far as we know) that Mary was purged of original sin.

The 1543 citation uses that exact term, and my opponents have not touched that since I have brought it up. Tao stated about the 1532 citation: "it certainly doesn't mention original sin with any specificity." So I produced the 1543 statement (in three translations: all of which I dug up independently of Doe and Tao) and (unless I missed something) it has been ignored ever since. This showed that Luther still believed Mary was purged of original sin in 1543, and he reiterated it in Lectures on Genesis in 1543-1544, though without using the words "original sin": I would contend that the concept was clearly there.

Tao chimed in, being about as gracious as he ever is towards me, but with the acid barb included:

It sounds like you're saying he [yours truly] did something additional beyond what I predicted he would do. That's fine. I'm glad to see he was even persuaded by our arguments to accept the view that he previously ridiculed. (10-5-10)

This is again spin and revisionism of what actually happened. What I "ridiculed" was Tao's and Doe's pretensions to pseudo-scholarship: thinking that they can blithely dismiss the opinions of Luther scholars (such as Doe's insistence that Piepkorn's opinion was not based on evidence, but rather, only a bias toward Rome because he was an ecumenist). What I "ridiculed" was Doe's highly selective mentioning of one Catholic scholar who agreed with him (notably Hartmann Grisar, whom he has described [on 12-13-05 and also 6-29-08] as an "anti-Luther Catholic historian") that Luther changed his mind in some sense (but even there, there are nuances that are not absolutely clear-cut), while ignoring many others, such as Eric Gritsch, one of the translators of Luther's Works.

I also strongly criticized Doe and Tao latching onto the word "his" in the 1540 translation, that was a mere interpolation into the text (absent in Browns' translation direct from the Latin), and making that one word their whole basis for concluding that Luther was referring to Christ's conception. I noted that this was hypocritical, since Doe is always carping about original sources and ad fontes!, yet here he was relying on an interpolation into a German text, that postdated the Latin original. They were right about the opinion (I think now) as to what it referred to, but for the wrong reasons, and with some considerable internal hypocrisy.

I did not ridicule simply holding the position that it referred to Christ's conception. I simply disagreed with it, and at length was persuaded to agree. So characterizing the point where I changed my mind as one that I previously "ridiculed" is a distortion of what actually happened. The record is clear.

Let's now look at Luther's Lectures on Genesis (chapter 38) [words referring to Mary in purple; those referring to Christ that may be construed as arguably Nestorian to some degree, in orange]:

Judah, the very eminent patriarch, a father of Christ, committed this unspeakable act of incest in order that Christ might be born from a flesh outstandingly sinful and contaminated by a most disgraceful sin. For he begets twins by an incestuous harlot, his own daughter-in-law, and from this source the line of the Savior is later derived. Here Christ must become a sinner in His flesh, as disgraceful as He ever can become. The flesh of Christ comes forth from an incestuous union; likewise, the flesh of the Virgin, His mother, and of all the descendants of Judah, in such a way that the ineffable plan of God’s mercy may be pointed out, because He assumed the flesh or the human nature from flesh that was contaminated and horribly polluted. (LW, 7:12)

The scholastic doctors argue about whether Christ was born from sinful or clean flesh, or whether from the foundation of the world God preserved a pure bit of flesh from which Christ was to be born. I reply, therefore, that Christ was truly born from true and natural flesh and human blood which was corrupted by original sin in Adam, but in such a way that it could be healed. Thus we, who are encompassed by sinful flesh, believe and hope that on the day of our redemption the flesh will be purged of and separated from all infirmities, from death, and from disgrace; for sin and death are separable evils. Accordingly, when it came to the Virgin and that drop of virginal blood, what the angel said was fulfilled: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and overshadow you” (Luke 1:35). To be sure, the Messiah was not born by the power of flesh and blood, as is stated in John ( cf. 1:13): “Not of blood nor of the will of a man, etc.” Nevertheless, He wanted to be born from the mass of the flesh and from that corrupted blood. 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. Therefore it is truly human nature no different from what it is in us. And Christ is the Son of Adam and of his seed and flesh, but, as has been stated, with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception and the pure and holy birth by which we were to be purged and freed from sin. (LW, 7:12-13)

The orange statements are either outright Nestorian or strongly tending in that direction. The second one is troublesome only insofar (Luther's meaning is not totally clear) as the "us" referred to is fallen man, and Christ had nothing to do with the fall. He is not subject to original sin in the first place (as I argued at length above).

But in the purple-colored statements, Luther reaffirms that God purged Mary of original sin (something entirely harmonious with Catholic dogma, as far as it goes). He even asserts the "fittingness" of Mary being pure, rather than necessity, which is also exactly the Catholic perspective ("in order that it might be fit . . ."), and a thing that both Tao and close Doe associate John Bugay have both publicly despised.

How interesting, though, that at this point, Doe: the Accuser-King in terms of relentlessly accusing others (mostly lowly "Romanists") of neglecting, even butchering context, and of selective and inadequate quotation, passes over the very next paragraph after the above citation. I think we can readily see why he did so. Blessedly, I have Luther's Works, vol. 7 in my own library, and here is the next section:

Therefore these things are written for Christ's sake. The Holy Spirit wanted Him to sink into sin as deeply as possible. Consequently, He had to be besmirched with incest and born from incestuous blood. (LW, 7:13)

Isn't that a lovely sentiment? The conscientious Protestant apologist can never be too careful in protecting the unknowing flock from some of Luther's more outrageous statements, can he? Doe thought it best for all concerned to not mention this at this time. So he chose to pass over it as part of his -------------- L O N G ------------ quotations and move ahead four pages.

It's all the more odd that he chose to eliminate it in his lengthy excerpts (when it was so relevant to the question of Luther's possible Nestorianism), since he actually cited the same passage in a post of his from 12-8-06. But, credit where it is due: I'm very thankful to John Q. Doe for helping to remind me of this view of Luther's. It makes things much more clear (both Luther's positions and Doe's techniques of selective quotation).

Christ alone is a son of the flesh without the sin of the flesh. (LW 7:18)

This doesn't necessarily contradict Mary being without sin, because of Luther's own expressed distinction between the first and second conceptions. Luther held that Mary inherited original sin in her body before she received a soul (and thus was in the "middle" of Christ and the rest of humanity), whereas he says that this was not the case for Jesus Christ.

But Judah begs that he may be permitted to go in to Tamar, that is, to have intercourse with her . . . she was made pregnant by the most shameful act of incest, and the flesh from which Christ was to be born was poured from the loins of Judah and was propagated, carried about, and contaminated with sin right up to the conception of Christ. That is how our Lord God treats our Savior. God allows Him to be conceived in most disgraceful incest, in order that He may assume the truest flesh, just as our flesh is poured forth, conceived, and nourished in sins. 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.” Nevertheless, it was truly flesh polluted from Judah and Tamar.

Therefore all these things have been described for Christ’s sake, in order that it might be certain that He really had to be born from sinful flesh, but without sin. Accordingly, David says this of himself in Ps. 51:5: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity.” This is said correctly also of the flesh of Christ as it was in the womb of Tamar, before it was assumed and purged. But this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, in order that He might be able to bear the punishment for sin in His own body. (LW, 7:31)

This is hopelessly muddled Christological thought. Christ was born of sinful flesh, but He wasn't, but maybe He was, or perhaps not. This is Luther: Orwellian doublethink and doublespeak. A=a, but it is not a, at the same time, just as in the nonsensical, unbiblical Protestant soteriological notion of purely imputed justification that he championed.

He applies sinfulness to Christ (that which is impossible) in some remote, bizarre sense, yet on the other hand He separates Christ from sin by saying, "this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged," and then claims that this had to happen, "in order that" Jesus could carry through His mission. Jesus was Who He was. Nothing was needed at all in His case. Since He could never inherit original sin in the first place, because that category doesn't apply to Him, there was no necessity at all to purge Mary of original sin for His sake. It was only "fitting." And that is what the Catholic Church teaches.

Here, therefore, the Blessed Seed is described. It is descended from the accursed, lost, and condemned seed and flesh. Nevertheless, It Itself is without sin and corruption. According to nature, Christ has the same flesh that we have; but in His conception the Holy Spirit came and overshadowed and purified the mass which He received from the Virgin that He might be united with the divine nature. In Christ, therefore, there is the holiest, purest, and cleanest flesh; but in us and in all human beings it is altogether corrupt, except insofar as it is restored in Christ. (LW, 7:36)

Luther, then, still believes that Mary was purified and sanctified (implying removal of original sin, as he had explicitly stated in 1543, in the same year or year before this writing. But he places the time at (far as we can tell) just before Christ's conception. Where Luther errs is in how he relates Mary's sanctification to Jesus Christ and His incarnation.

Whenever he implies that Jesus actually partook of sin in any real way, in any sense, it is at least semi-Nestorian heresy and blasphemy. Doe follows the same thought in how he describes Luther's views, but with far more sloppiness and heretical terminology (because he knows far less theology than Luther).

Hints of the same quasi-Nestorianism can be found in Luther's 1532 utterances as well (excepted above), if one looks closely enough. And they were most obvious in His remarks earlier on in his career about Jesus' visit to hell:

He found Himself in a state of condemnation and abandonment . . . He actually and in truth offered Himself to the eternal Father to be consigned to eternal damnation for us. His human nature did not behave differently from that of a man who is to be condemned eternally to hell. On account of this love of God, God at once raised Him from death and hell, and so He overcame hell.

(Hartmann Grisar, Luther, translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Capadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 2nd edition, 1914, vol. 1 of 6, 239-240; from Commentary on Romans [1515-1516]; edition of J. Ficker, Leipzig: 1908, 218 ff.)

It's not just my judgment that this is heretical theology (present even before he forsook Catholicism); it was also the conclusion of Luther's best friend and successor, Philip Melanchthon, the Lutheran Confessions, and Paul Althaus, in his widely used book, The Theology of Martin Luther. I'm not the only one objecting to it, by any means. See the related papers:

2 Corinthians 5:21: Was Jesus Christ Literally Made Sin on the Cross? Did He Suffer the Horrors of Damnation? Luther and Calvin vs. the Church Fathers

Dialogue With Four Lutherans Concerning Certain "Nestorianizing" Tendencies in the Lutheran Conception of Jesus' Descent Into Hell

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes one of the key errors of Nestorianism, that is in full display in Luther's remarks above:

Two things are certain: first, that, whether or no they believed in the unity of the subject in the Incarnate Word, at least they explained that unity wrongly; secondly, that they used most unfortunate and misleading language when they spoke of the union of the manhood with the Godhead — language which is objectively heretical, even were the intention of its authors good.

Revised, Expanded Chronological Summary of Luther's (Affirmative) Utterances on the Immaculate Conception and/or Mary's Sinlessness

1521 [Hartmann Grisar, 1917] received so much grace that she was quite filled with it, as we believe (Rationis Latomiance confutatio [WA 8:56]; from Luther, vol. 4, p. 238)

1522 [William J. Cole, 1970] She is full of grace; so that she may be recognized as without any sin. That is a high and great thing, for God's grace fills her with all gifts and frees her from all evil. (Little Prayer Book)

[Eric W. Gritsch, 1992] full of grace [voll Gnaden] . . . graced [begnadet]

1527 [Hilda Graef, 1965] the grace of God makes her full of all that is good and empty of all evil. (WA 17,409 / Sermon on the Annunciation, 1527)

1527 [Abp. William Ullathorne, 1905] And the other conception, that is to say, the infusion of the soul, is piously believed to have been accomplished without original sin. So that, in that very infusing of the soul, the body was simultaneously purified from original sin, and endowed with divine gifts to receive that holy soul which was infused into it from God. And thus in the first moment it began to live, it was exempt from all sin . . . the Virgin Mary was, according to the first conception, without grace, yet according to the second conception, she was full of grace. . . . the Virgin Mary was conceived, according to the body, indeed without grace, but according to the soul, full of grace. . . . Again, it was just and meet that that person should be preserved from original sin from whom Christ received the flesh by which He overcame all sins. And that, indeed, is properly called blessed which is endowed with divine grace, that is, which is free from sin.

[Hartmann Grisar, 1917] It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin. (Luther, vol. 4, p. 238)

[Hilda Graef, 1965] one believes blessedly that at the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin

[Thomas A. O'Meara, 1966] the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul . . . it is believed that it took place without contacting original sin. . . . her first conception was without grace, but the second was full of grace . . . Mary the Virgin is conceived according to the body without grace, but according to the soul she is full of grace

[Eric W. Gritsch, 1992] the Virgin Mary, though without grace in the first conception, was full of grace in the second . . . . the Virgin Mary was conceived in body without grace but in soul full of grace.

[Beth Kreitzer, 2003] purified from original sin and decorated with God's gifts [von der erbsunnde sey gerainneget worden] . . . . from the first moment that she began to live, she was without all sin

1532 [J. T. Isensee, 1871] the virgin was alone, and being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, conceived this blessed fruit without sin and by the Holy Spirit . . . God poured out so richly His Holy Spirit into the soul and body of the Virgin Mary that without any sin she conceived and bore our Lord Jesus

[Thomas A. O'Meara, 1966] God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus.

[Beth Kreitzer, 2004] she was without all sin [das sie ohne alle Sund gewesen ist]

1532 [John Nicholas Lenker, 1996] Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her . . . he warded off sin from her flesh and blood . . . For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit

1537 [Smalcald Articles; Tappert, 1959] born of the pure, holy, and virgin Mary [ex Maria pura, sancta, Semper Virgine]

1540 [Eric W. Gritsch, 1992, presumably from Latin, since he mentions only WA, where this piece is in Latin] In his conception all of Mary's flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained.

[Christopher B. Brown, 1995?; from original Latin] in conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. . . . every seed except for Mary's was corrupted.

[Bonnie Noble, 2009; from the secondary German Tappolet translation] Mary's flesh and blood was purified in [his] conception, so that nothing sinful remained.

1543 [Gerhard Falk, 1992] a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost

[Beth Kreitzer, 2004] saved and purified from original sin through the Holy Spirit [Maria ist] ein heilige Jungfraw, die, von der Erbsunde erloset und gereiniget, durch den heiligen Geist]

[Bridget Heal, 2007] a holy virgin, who was saved and purified from Original Sin by the Holy Ghost

1543-1544 [Paul D. Pahl, 1965] 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, . . .

1544 [H. George Anderson et al, 1992] Mary being "immaculate" is "a pious and pleasing thought" [haec pia cogitatio et placet] (Exposition of the Ninth Chapter of Isaiah, 1543/44. WA 40/3:680.31-32).

1545 [Eric W. Gritsch, 1966] Then we shall sing the glad hymn to Your Hellishness, “Virgin before, in, and after childbearing,” since you are the pure Virgin Mary, who has not sinned and cannot sin for ever more.