Replies

I somehow missed we should pray to Mary or the explanation of the Hail Mary or rosary in Luthers small catechism which I committed to memory as did all my fellow confirmands in middle school..... not buying what you are selling. But yes there are a few places where Luther did not get far enough from Rome mostly in the area of eschatology.

But this will not do for those who are serious about consulting Luther in order to arrive at the true "Reformation heritage" and the roots of an authentic Protestantism. For if Luther's views here can be so easily rationalized away, how can the Protestant know whether he is trustworthy relative to his other innovative doctrines such as extrinsic justification by faith alone and sola Scriptura? It appears, once again, that the truth about important historical figures is almost invariably more complex than the "legends" and overly-simplistic generalizations which men often at the remove of centuries—create and accept uncritically.

I guess this week Luther is a "good guy" to our FRoman friends?

Mr. Armstrong is very selective in his expositions on Luther and fails to do what he advises others. He generalizes, simplifies and doesn't consider the more mature Luther and his Mariology. For those interested in a more balanced look at this subject than what a Roman Catholic apologist imagines, please see Martin Luther's Theology of Mary by James Swann.

It's funny how Armstrong wants to criticize Protestants by questioning Luther's view of Mary and his "trustworthiness" on this versus his other Reformed doctrines. It's like he just doesn't get it that Luther is not the Pope of Protestants, that the Reformation was far more widespread than one man and about far more than simply Luther's thinking about Mary. Reformation theology was neither novel nor "innovative" - something RC critics claim but find impossible to prove.