Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Luther & James Swan Blaspheme (Christ’s Sinlessness)

Luther & James Swan Blaspheme (Christ’s Sinlessness)

Last updated on: September 10, 2020 at 1:31 pm by Dave Armstrong

Luther & James Swan Blaspheme (Christ’s Sinlessness) 2020-09-10T13:31:19-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

James Swan (who runs the Boors All blog) fancies himself an expert of Martin Luther and his theology, and takes pride in refuting (so he thinks) every jot and tittle of Catholic apologetics, which occasionally cites Luther, when he agrees (or largely agrees) with Catholic positions (especially mariological ones). I’ve been refuting him since 2003 (see his lengthy section on my Anti-Catholicism page).

Credit where it is due: I freely grant that, many times, he helpfully points out distortions and biases in Catholic apologetics efforts with regard to Luther. On a few occasions, he has helped to convince me of some fine points regarding Luther’s views.

That said, he also — unfortunately — is not above regularly exhibiting extreme biases and mistakes (and, sad to say, outright lies) of his own, distorting what Catholic apologists argue about Luther (above all, my own efforts in this regard). Sometimes, he strays into flat-out heresy and blasphemy, not just by Catholic orthodox standards, but by Protestant theological / creedal / confessional criteria as well. And he does so in the present instance by following Luther in an error, and not recognizing that Luther was wrong (even by later Lutheran standards).

In an article dated 15 June 2007 (“Luther and the Immaculate Conception? The 1540 Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ”), Swan (his words in blue below, and Luther’s in green) cites Luther:

Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ

February 27, 1540

conducted by Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546

translated from the Latin text WA 39/2,.92-121 by Christopher B. Brown

On the Immaculate Conception of Mary:*

Argument: 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.

Luther does appear to express orthodox Catholic christology in this excerpt. He has noted that Christ in his Divine Nature and — most importantly — “because“ of His incarnation and inherent Godhood / deity / divinity (though he uses the phrase “divine Person”) is not afflicted with either original sin or concupiscence. He gets details of Mary’s immaculate conception wrong (for an exposition of that, see my 2010 paper, “Luther & the “Immaculate Purification” of Mary“). But that is a different issue from his christology, which is — in this particular statement — in accord with Catholic orthodox christology.

Now here is where Swan not only gets Luther’s stated position wrong, but descends into heresy and blasphemy at the same time:

I exhorted this Catholic to stay away from topics he didn’t know anything about. . . .

Oh, the deep wellsprings of irony here! . . .

1. The Holy Spirit was present at Christ’s conception to ensure his sinlessness.

2. During Christ’s conception, the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood. [my bolding and italics]

Huh?! Jesus, being God, and God from all eternity, just as the Father and Holy Spirit are, doesn’t need the Holy Spirit to “ensure his sinlessness.” Nothing in Him needs to be protected in this way. Sinlessness is an inherent, intrinsic, unchangeable attribute shared by all three Persons of the Holy Trinity. It can’t be either lost or obtained. It’s there from all eternity in all three. Moreover, to imply (even worse) that Jesus’ sinlessness is in danger but for the sinlessness of Mary is to make God dependent on one of His creatures, and this (like the other false tenet) is outrageous blasphemy and rank heresy, smacking of the serious error of Nestorianism.

Luther didn’t teach it, in this excerpt, but Swan thinks he did, and Swan also appears to take the position himself, or (at the very least) to not realize that it is blasphemous and heretical. If he did, he would (as all good Christian apologists do) point out its wrongness and danger for his readers.

Catholic theology, on the other hand, holds that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was not necessary to preserve anything about Jesus (though the virgin birth was, I believe, necessary for the incarnation to take place). Rather, we contend that Mary’s immaculate conception was merely “fitting” or “appropriate.” The dogmatic declaration of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 uses the word “fitting” three times.

Swan (like all who are weak in the art of disputation and/or apologetics) has a way of repeating things endlessly, fallaciously thinking that this gives his arguments (or pseudo-arguments, as the case may be) the appearance of strength. The big downside of that is that if he gets something drastically, scandalously wrong — as presently — then he is compounding his error (as a teacher of others) by repeating it.

But in the next example, it looks like Luther, too (often not given to logical consistency or constancy), committed the same error that Swan then follows: not considering its heretical implications:

Rather than discussing Mary’s sinlessness, Luther insisted Christ’s sinlessness was due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during conception. Mr. Armstrong seems to have missed this completely. (from: “Luther’s Theology of Mary: a Response to Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong,” June 2003)

Luther’s later writings insist Christ’s sinlessness was due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during his conception. In 1532 he preached:

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… [Martin Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, ed. John Nicholas Lenker. ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 291]. [my bolding and italics] (from: “Did Martin Luther believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?” [link], 9-30-10)

Luther’s later writings insist Christ’s sinlessness was due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during His conception. [my bolding and italics] (from: “Real Catholic TV: Luther and the Immaculate Conception”, 12-9-11)

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 his conception. (from: “Interfaith Mary: ‘Mother Mary And Martin Luther,’ Reviewed”, 12-27-17)

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 his conception, not Mary’s. [my bolding and italics] (from: “Luther’s Theology of Mary… Facebook Style”, 8-25-20)

Six times, Swan has expressed the same heretical, blasphemous lies. Shame on him. If he wants to teach others online and expect to be granted respect and teaching “authority,” then he ought to get up to speed as to basic christology and theology proper (the theology of God). This is why it says in the Bible:

James 3:1 (RSV) Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

Hebrews 5:12-13 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; [13] for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child.

The Bible also states:

Proverbs 9:8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

***

Photo credit: I love contemporary art (3-31-14) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

***

Anti-Catholicism

Blessed Virgin Mary

Martin Luther

Trinitarianism & Christology

Christ's sinlessness

christological heresy

Divine Nature of Christ

Immaculate Conception

two natures of christ

Previous Post

September 9, 2020

Ratzinger “Banal” Quote: Traditionalist & Reactionary Misuse

Next Post

September 10, 2020 Seidensticker Folly #52: Spiritual Bodies R Physical

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz