Here I Stand:  A Review of Dave Armstrong’s Citations of Roland Bainton’s Popular Biography on Martin Luther


By James Swan

July 2004





Luther the Irascible Old Man

Luther on the Death Penalty and Persecution  

Luther and the Paintings of Lucas Cranach

Luther and the Bigamy of Phillip of Hesse






Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong frequently discusses Martin Luther. His website contains many long articles on Luther, most of which contain numerous quotes from Luther and secondary sources. Armstrong has been criticized for unfairness in his research and citations.[1] Let it be said that I do not believe Mr. Armstrong deliberately miss-cites sources. Rather, he approaches his subjects with an underlying bias that colors the way he understands them. Often, an author makes a point Armstrong sees as relevant. Armstrong then quotes the author, but may either miss the context, or ignore what the author goes on to say. In some cases the author is making a point different from the one Armstrong is making. Sometimes the author concludes differently than Armstrong. Does he do this in all instances? No.  


I thought it would be interesting to look at Dave Armstrong’s usage of perhaps the most popular Luther biography ever written in English: Roland Bainton’s, Here I Stand a Life of Martin Luther. I chose this work for a simple reason: it is an easily accessible and readable work. For anyone interested in reviewing Armstrong’s citations or my analysis, Bainton’s book is readily available at many public libraries, as well as most major book outlets.  The primary focus will be on Chapter 22: “The Measure Of The Man” found on pages 292-302. It will be my intent to show that Mr. Armstrong has utilized Bainton as scholarly support for his opinions incorrectly. In that utilization, Bainton’s opinion has been minimized so as to create seeming harmony between Armstrong and Bainton. When the complete context of Bainton’s words are examined, the agreement between these authors is so minimal, one is forced to conclude that Mr. Armstrong should look elsewhere for scholarly support for his conclusions. 



Luther the Irascible Old Man

Mr. Armstrong has a negative view of Luther’s later years. Armstrong said of Luther, “it is also true that he was contradictory (even beyond his characteristic rhetorical contrasts and exaggerations) and that his later years were less coherent (at least in expression) than his earlier years.”[2] He had earlier appealed to Roland Bainton that for Luther,

“. . [T]he conflicts and the labors of the dramatic years had impaired his health and made him prematurely an irascible old man, petulant, peevish, unrestrained, and at times positively coarse. This is no doubt another reason why biographers prefer to be brief in dealing with this period. There are several incidents over which one would rather draw the veil . . . (Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, New York: New American Library, 1950, 292)”

The entire last sentence left off by Armstrong actually ends, “There are several incidents over which one would rather draw the veil, but precisely because they are so often exploited to his discredit they are not to be left unrecorded.” Note the words “exploited to his discredit.” Bainton goes on to discuss Luther’s pronouncements on the bigamy of Philip of Hesse, and Luther’s attitude toward the Anabaptists, Jews, and Papists. Bainton’s intent is to show that even with these “incidents,” the impact and greatness of Luther cannot be dismissed (see Bainton’s conclusion, “The Measure of the Man” on pages 300-302). 


All of these negative subjects are discussed on Armstrong’s website. As Armstrong discusses these subjects at length, one has to seriously consider whether Bainton had writings of similar ilk to Armstrong’s in mind when he penned those words many years ago. Mr. Armstrong criticizes Luther’s character in order to “set the record straight.”[3] He documents such things as Luther’s “intemperate language,” his pre-involvement with Nazi Germany, and his “persecution of Anabaptists and Jews.” Armstrong says,


“…from a biblical perspective, a man's teachings must be backed up by his life, or else the doctrines are suspect…To think that a man greatly lacking in moral uprightness could deliver the truth of primitive," holy, and pure Christianity to the world is biblically, morally, and even logically suspect. Therefore, we must determine whether Luther can pass this fundamental test -- all the more so since he often excoriated the faults of others.”[4]


Armstrong cited the above Bainton quote in a long web-article responding to a paper I did on Luther’s Mariology.[5] Armstrong cited Bainton to prove that Luther’s later writings were filled with


“…many, many straw men Luther constructed concerning Catholic doctrine and theology, that he could then proceed to mock as idiotic and unbiblical, and triumphantly "vanquish" -- a tendency which worsened as he got older (particularly and notoriously in Table Talk): ideas which are then picked up by his latter-day followers and perpetuated.”[6]


If Armstrong is correct, this is indeed a distressing picture of Luther the theologian, and his later writings should be avoided, or read with extreme caution. Elsewhere, I have suggested Luther the theologian never stopped “growing and developing” in a primarily positive direction.[7] But consider the same chapter from Bainton’s book from which Mr. Armstrong cited. After a brief review of political and theological issues with which Luther was involved, Bainton says,


“To all the obligations of university and parish he gave himself unremittingly. To the end he was preaching, lecturing, counseling, and writing. However much the superb defiance of the earlier days might degenerate into the peevishness of one racked by disease, labor, and discouragement, yet a case of genuine need would always restore his sense of proportion and bring him into the breach.”[8]                       


“Luther's later years are, however, by no means to be written off as the sputterings of a dying flame. If in his polemical tracts he was at times savage and coarse, in the works which constitute the real marrow of his life's endeavor he grew constantly in maturity and artistic creativity. The biblical translation was improved to the very end. The sermons and the biblical commentaries reached superb heights. The delineation of the sacrifice of Isaac, … comes from the year 1545. Some of the passages cited throughout this book [Here I Stand] to illustrate Luther's religious and ethical principles are also from the later period.”[9]  


Bainton does not suggest Luther’s later years were “less coherent.” Nor does Bainton imply that Luther constructed “straw men.” What Bainton describes is the tenor of Luther’s later work. Illness, irritability, and old age produced in a Luther a pen that was at times unrestrained and coarse. The main intent of Bainton is to show that even despite this, Luther’s impact and importance to the history of the church and the world cannot be minimized or written off. Luther’s faults cannot be “exploited” to denigrate or question his significance. Bainton is quite sympathetic to Luther’s character in his later years, Armstrong is not.



Luther on the Death Penalty and Persecution 

Roman Catholics tend to use Luther’s comments on the peasants revolt against him. The revolt is a complex episode in the life of Luther. Dave Armstrong is no exception. In his review of the 2003 Luther movie, Armstrong commented on the film’s portrayal of the peasants revolt:


“The "Luther-as-always-the-noble-hero-and slayer-of-hopelessly-corrupt-Rome-Babylon" myth, however, also holds that he was the champion of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, for men to worship as they please. This is simply not true …This mythology was contradicted by Luther's notion of the "State Church," where secular princes took the role previously held by bishops, with each region was declared to be of one religious persuasion or the other. And it is contradicted by a host of other decrees and acts of power, oppression and suppression.”[10]


Included as documentation for this opinion is a quote from Roland Bainton:


“In 1530 Luther advanced the view that two offences should be penalized even with death, namely sedition and blasphemy . . . Luther construed mere abstention from public office and military service as sedition and a rejection of an article of the Apostles' Creed as blasphemy. In a memorandum of 1531, composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, a rejection of the ministerial office was described as insufferable blasphemy, and the disintegration of the Church as sedition against the ecclesiastical order. In a memorandum of 1536, again composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, the distinction between the peaceful and the revolutionary Anabaptists was obliterated." (Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, New York: Mentor, 1950, 295)”[11]


In one of his articles utilizing this same quote, it falls under the section, “Death and Torture For Catholics, Protestant dissidents. And Jews.”[12]  The picture of Luther put forth by Armstrong is that Luther was always an advocate of severe punishment, in all circumstances, and Roland Bainton agrees with and supports this position. Bainton though, ends this section by stating that overall, Luther’s leniency is what is striking:


“The other point to remember alike in the case of Luther and Melanchthon is that they were quite as much convinced as was the church of the inquisition that the truth of God can be known, and being known lays supreme obligations upon mankind to preserve it unsullied. The Anabaptists were regarded as the corrupters of souls. Luther's leniency toward them is the more to be remarked than his severity. He did insist to the end that faith is not to be forced, that in private a man may believe what he will, that only open revolt or public attack on the orthodox teaching should be penalized—in his own words, that only sedition and blasphemy rather than heresy should be subject to constraint.”[13]


As far I have been able to navigate through Armstrong’s vast web site, these words by Bainton are never cited. Armstrong also leaves out, that according to Bainton, Luther’s view was in flux. Bainton notes that Luther did support a broader concept of religious freedom previous to 1530. Bainton quotes Luther as saying in 1527:


“It is not right, and I am deeply troubled that the poor people are so pitifully put to death, burned, and cruelly slain. Let everyone believe what he likes. If he is wrong, he will have punishment enough in hell fire. Unless there is sedition, one should oppose them with Scripture and God's Word. With fire you won't get anywhere.”[14]


Bainton then documents Luther’s change in attitude. Luther saw public blasphemy and sedition as two offenses that should be reprimanded. The death penalty may be invoked in certain instances. Sedition can be defined as, “Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state,” or insurrection and rebellion.[15]   Bainton describes legal documents prepared by Melanchthon and signed by Luther which held that all Anabaptists were to be punished, even those that weren’t stirring up social unrest. Even with this, Bainton points out:


“Luther may not have been too happy about signing these memoranda. At any rate he appended postscripts to each. To the first he said, "I assent. Although it seems cruel to punish them with the sword, it is crueler that they condemn the ministry of the Word and have no well-grounded doctrine and suppress the true and in this way seek to subvert the civil order." Luther's addition to the second document was a plea that severity be tempered with mercy.”[16]


 Bainton then again notes yet another change in Luther’s position:


“In 1540 he is reported in his Table Talk to have returned to the position of Philip of Hesse that only seditious Anabaptists should be executed; the others should be merely banished.”[17]


Most importantly, Bainton gives the reason for Luther’s harsh attitude towards the Anabaptists. He explains why Luther vacillated on how to treat peaceful Anabaptists. Luther’s attitudes were an over-reaction to overt social unrest:


“For the understanding of Luther's position one must bear in mind that Anabaptism was not in every instance socially innocuous. The year in which Luther signed the memorandum counseling death even for the peaceful Anabaptists was the year in which a group of them ceased to be peaceful. Goaded by ten years of incessant persecution, bands of fanatics in 1534 received a revelation from the Lord that they should no more be as sheep for the slaughter but rather as the angel with the sickle to reap the harvest. By forcible measures they took over the city of Munster in Westphalia and there inaugurated the reign of the saints, of which Thomas Muntzer had dreamed. Catholics and Protestants alike conjoined to suppress the reign of the new Daniels and Elijahs. The whole episode did incalculable damage to the reputation of the Anabaptists, who before and after were peaceable folk. But this one instance of rebellion engendered the fear that sheep's clothing concealed wolves who might better be dealt with before they threw off the disguise. In Luther's case it should further be remembered that the leading Anabaptist in Thuringia was Melchior Rink, and he had been with Thomas Muntzer at the battle of Frankenhausen. Yet when all of these attenuating considerations are adduced, one cannot forget that Melanchthon's memorandum justified the eradication of the peaceful, not because they were incipient and clandestine revolutionaries, but on the ground that even a peaceful renunciation of the state itself constituted sedition.[18]


One can understand then why Luther advocated such a strong position at one point. The fabric of sixteenth century society was laden with civil unrest. Extreme times call for extreme measures, and sometimes those extreme measures are the result of an over reaction to current events. Consider the events in American history after the tragic terrorist attack on 9/11, in which America, collectively, looked over their shoulders to see if terrorists were hiding in the bushes.


In utilizing Bainton, Armstrong overlooks the details of what is actually being put forth. These nuances of what Bainton actually said are missing from his web papers.[19]  In responding to a Lutheran, Armstrong neglects the totality of Bainton’s view and says that Luther


 “…(at least after 1536) considered even peaceful Anabaptists …seditious rebels, as Bainton notes… and on the basis of their rejection of "infant baptism" and their "unnecessary separation"… The time has obviously come, then, for Mr. Noland [Director of Concordia Historical Institute] to "believe it." He need go no further than Roland Bainton (I assume he has read that very famous work; perhaps a "refresher reading" is in order).[20]  


Recall above, Bainton indicates that Luther’s position on “peaceful Anabaptists” shifted towards the direction of leniency, after 1536. Armstrong also provides a striking anachronistical commentary on Bainton’s words:


“Under the various criteria thought by Luther to be heretical, seditious, or blasphemous, the following groups would be worthy of death: Baptists, Pentecostals, many independent evangelicals, Operation Rescue pro-life activists, civil rights activists, Abolitionists, the Founding Fathers of America, many Libertarians and Conservatives, Communists and socialists, many members of communes, Plymouth Brethren, Mennonites, Quakers, Amish, humanists and atheists, all religious non-Christians, most theological liberals, all cultists, draft dodgers and conscientious objectors, and some home schoolers. I myself would have failed Luther's litmus test for orthodoxy on at least five of these grounds.”[21]


Sixteenth Century Germany was Sixteenth Century Germany. Thus, including Operation Rescue, pro-life activists, civil rights activists and many others modern groups mentioned by Armstrong is simply historical anachronism. The argument put forth ignores the context of the past and over simplifies the real Luther. How would Luther react to twenty first century America?  Armstrong assumes that Luther would be solidified in a sixteenth century worldview, which is total conjecture. Luther was not a predictable man. How he would adapt or understand the world today would probably surprise all of us.  



Luther and the Paintings of Lucas Cranach

Towards the end of his life, Luther commissioned the painter Lucas Cranach to draw cartoons to accompany one of his writings. Armstrong explains, “Luther issued this disgraceful tract, complete with illustrations by the famous painter Lucas Cranach, who profaned his real artistic talents as much as Luther does his true literary gifts. For instance, a "devil-mother" is shown as a hideous woman with a tail, from under which Pope and Cardinals are emerging head foremost.”[22]


Armstrong then says, “Protestant admirer of Luther Roland Bainton describes the "art" as "outrageously vulgar . . . in all of this he was utterly unrestrained."[23] What Armstrong leaves out is Bainton’s explanation for these paintings:


“The third group toward whom Luther became more bitter was the papists. His railing against the pope became perhaps the more vituperative because there was so little else that could be done. Another public appearance such as that at Worms, where an ampler confession could be made, was denied Luther, and the martyrdom which came to others also passed him by. He compensated by hurling vitriol. Toward the very end of his life he issued an illustrated tract with outrageously vulgar cartoons. In all of this he was utterly unrestrained.”[24]


Again, Roland Bainton is sympathetic to Luther. For Armstrong to quote him and neglect to tell his readers of Bainton’s explicit apologetic is to leave Bainton’s attitude ambiguous. If I were to simply read Armstrong’s quotation of Bainton without the context, I would be under the impression that Bainton came down hard on Luther. He does not.  


Luther and the Bigamy of Phillip of Hesse

A profound aspect of the Bible is its commitment to telling us about the sins of the human condition; even in those characters considered the greatest of God’s people. David was described as “a man after God’s own heart,” yet within his life one finds adultery and murder. Jesus called Peter “blessed,” yet not long after, Peter denied that he even knew him. Examples could be multiplied, and could go beyond the pages of Scripture into the halls of church history. God’s people struggle with sin, and sometimes take great falls. Such is the case of Martin Luther. Considered to be one of the greatest men in church history, a survey of his life shows many high peaks and some deep valleys: profound success for God’s kingdom, along with human failure.


A failure that is often brought out by those opposed to Luther is his involvement with the bigamy of Phillip of Hesse. Armstrong says,


Some of Luther's most shocking opinions are regarding celibacy, chastity, and marriage. One might expect from Luther a certain disdain of Tradition, but not such a wanton disrespect of the moral teachings of the Bible. The most famous sexual scandal of the Protestant Revolt was the bigamy of the Prince ("Landgrave") Philip of Hesse.”[25]

In another paper, Armstrong says,

“The affair concerning the bigamy of the Landgrave Philip of Hesse is well-known and almost universally detested by Protestant observers. Having heard of Luther's sexual liberalism, Philip petitioned him, asking permission to take another wife, so as to ameliorate his continuous adultery. At first Luther counseled the Prince to have "secret relations," comparing this to the concubinage of the Patriarchs in the Old Testament.”[26]

Armstrong then provides a quote from Bainton:

“There are several incidents over which one would rather draw the veil . . . The most notorious was his attitude toward the bigamy of the Landgrave, Philip of Hesse . . . Luther counseled a lie . . . Luther's solution of the problem can be called only a pitiable subterfuge.(Bainton, 292-293)”[27]

This quote is similar to the one Armstrong utilized above. Note again, Armstrong leaves out the entirety of the sentence, “There are several incidents over which one would rather draw the veil, but precisely because they are so often exploited to his discredit they are not to be left unrecorded.” Again, in the writings of Armstrong, we find an example of what Bainton is writing against.  


Bainton’s full context for this snippet reads:


There are several incidents over which one would rather draw the veil, but precisely because they are so often exploited to his discredit they are not to be left unrecorded.” The most notorious was his attitude toward the bigamy of the landgrave, Philip of Hesse. This prince had been given in marriage with no regard to his own affections—that is, for purely political reasons—at the age of nineteen to the daughter of Duke George. Philip, unable to combine romance with marriage, found his satisfaction promiscuously on the outside. After his conversion his conscience so troubled him that he dared not present himself at the Lord s Table. He believed that if he could have one partner to whom he was genuinely attached he would be able to keep himself within the bounds of matrimony. There were several ways in which his difficulty could have been solved. If he had remained a Catholic, he might have been able to secure an annulment on the grounds of some defect in the marriage; but since he had become a Lutheran, he could expect no consideration from the pope. Nor would Luther permit recourse to the Catholic device. A second solution would have been divorce and re-marriage. A great many Protestant bodies in the present day would countenance this method, particularly since Philip had been subjected in his youth to a loveless match. But Luther at this point interpreted the Gospels rigidly and held to the word of Christ as reported by Matthew that divorce is permissible only for adultery. But Luther did feel that there should be some remedy, and he discovered it by a reversion to the mores of the Old Testament patriarchs, who had practiced bigamy and even polygamy without any manifestation of divine displeasure. Philip was given the assurance that he might in good conscience take a second wife. Since, however, to do so would be against the law of the land, he should keep the union a secret. This the new bride's mother declined to do; and then Luther counseled a lie on the ground that his advice had been given as in the confessional, and to guard the secrete of the confessional a lie is justified. But the secret was out, and the disavowal was ineffective. Luther's final comment was that if anyone thereafter should practice bigamy, let the Devil give him a bath in the abyss of hell.


The whole episode had disastrous political consequences for the Protestant movement because Philip, in order to secure pardon from the emperor, had to dissociate himself from a military alliance with the Protestants. The scene of Philip abjectly seeking grace from His Imperial Majesty has a certain irony because Charles deposited illegitimate children all over Europe, whom the pope legitimatized in order that they might occupy high offices of state. Luther's solution of the problem can be called only a pitiable subterfuge. He should first have directed his attack against the evil system of degrading marriage to the level of a political convenience, and he might well have adopted the later Protestant solution of divorce.[28]


Armstrong quotes Bainton saying, “Luther counseled a lie…”. Bainton says actually, “…and then Luther counseled a lie on the ground that his advice had been given as in the confessional, and to guard the secrete of the confessional a lie is justified.” My intent in this paper is not to quibble about this situation, but rather to point out that Roland Bainton gives a reason why Luther lied. The picture created by Armstrong of Luther is that Luther spent his days lying continually. In one of his papers he includes a section, “Luther’s Lying and Vulgar Language.” Interestingly, this section comes right after “Luther on Bigamy, The Scandal of Phillip of Hesse.”


Armstrong’s final snippet from Bainton says: “…Luther's solution of the problem can be called only a pitiable subterfuge.” Indeed, Luther’s lie was pitiable subterfuge. Bainton though says a few other things about Luther and this situation that would express the entirety of his opinion. He says, “Luther's final comment was that if anyone thereafter should practice bigamy, let the Devil give him a bath in the abyss of hell.” Here Bainton points out that he understands Luther to be repentant for the entirety of this situation. One would think this should be a highly quotable aspect of not only this incident, but Bainton’s treatment of it as well. Roman Catholic writers tend to ignore it (perhaps repentance isn’t a character aspect of Luther’s they know how to synthesize into their polemic against him!). Bainton also points out the role of the Papacy in legitimizing Hesse’s illegitimate children (a fact not much mentioned by Roman Catholics). Bainton also notes that the practice of marriage in the sixteenth century was itself a system plagued with a sub-Christian ethic. Bainton’s final solution is that Luther would have been better off counseling divorce. One wonders if Phillip had remained Catholic, if subsequent history would have been debating and discussing the impact of his “evil” of annulment on the institution of marriage, rather than the evils of bigamy and divorce.



 Mr. Armstrong has commented that a cyber-space opponent:


“…implied that I am deliberately dishonest (or darn close to it, at any rate) in how I present Luther on my website, and in how I edited a recent exchange… for my blog. He has stated recently that virtually all my Luther citations are "out of context" and that they are absurdly, cynically selective, and thus, in effect, unfair to Luther. Along with the usual poppycock charges, he seems to believe that I cannot possibly be fair to Luther (nor does he -- far as I can tell -- think I wish to be) simply because I am a Catholic apologist; thus severely-biased, by definition (thus, he called my work mere "spin").”[29]


In this paper I have tried to keep this discussion as academic as possible. Again, I do not believe Mr. Armstrong deliberately miss-cites Roland Bainton. Armstrong has not been “deliberately dishonest.”  My position is that Armstrong does not present the entirety of Bainton’s opinions, so a reader is left with a truncated understanding of Here I Stand. Does Armstrong purposely set out to do this? I don’t think so. In his zeal to justify his church and its stance against the Reformation, he sees facts in Protestant books that support his position. They practically jump off the page. A common approach of all those involved with apologetics is to read material from the “other side” and highlight where they admit “truthful” aspects of the opposing position. This is fine; I’ve done it myself. However, I would suggest to Mr. Armstrong that he include something to this effect: “Roland Bainton agrees with ‘x’, however he also says ‘y.’” This would alleviate any suspicion of selective citation.



[1] See Armstrong’s paper, “My Alleged Pathetic Martin Luther Research, Luther Bashing, & Dishonesty” found at:[]


[2] Dave Armstrong, “Second Reply Concerning Luther’s Mariology” []


[3] Dave Armstrong, “Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact



[4] Dave Armstrong, “Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact.”



[5] Interestingly, the quote and the comment of Dave’s that follows are now missing from his web article. The quote used to be in: Dave Armstrong, “Counter-Reply: Martin Luther’s Mariology (Particularly The Immaculate Conception)”. This document is available upon request. I have 3 or 4 different versions of this paper.


[6] What was the “straw man” that the irascible old Luther put forth according to Armstrong? It was Luther’s rejection of “the idea that through the centuries a pure strain (massa imperdita) had been preserved from which Christ ultimately came.  In his lectures on Gen. 38:1-5 he calls attention to the immorality and incest to be found among our Lord’s ancestors according to the flesh.” Martin Luther, What Luther Says, Vol. 1, ed. Ewald Martin Plass  (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959) 151. This is the editors comment.  In LW 7:12, Luther explains, “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 [Cf. the citations from various scholastics collected in Scotus Academicus, VII (Rome, 1901), 830–832.]”


[7] See my paper, “Luther’s Theology of Mary, A Response to Dave Armstrong” at


[8] Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life Of Martin Luther (New York: Mentor Books, 1950), 300.


[9] Bainton, 300.


[10] Dave Armstrong, “Catholic Response to the Movie Luther (2003)



[11] Dave Armstrong, “Catholic Response to the Movie Luther (2003)



[12] Dave Armstrong, “The Protestant Inquisition: ‘Reformation’ Intolerance and Persecution



[13] Bainton, 296.


[14] Bainton, 294.


[15] On line Dictionary []


[16] Bainton, 295.


[17] Bainton, 295.


[18] Bainton, 296.


[19] Armstrong includes a fuller context from Bainton at Still, Armstrong violates exactly what Bainton’s point was, namely that Luther's leniency toward Anabaptists is “the more to be remarked than his severity.” Armstrong reverses this and concentrates more on Luther’s severity rather than leniency.


[20] Dave Armstrong, “Catholic Response to the Movie Luther (2003)” []


[21] Dave Armstrong, “The Protestant Inquisition: ‘Reformation’ Intolerance and Persecution” []


[22] Dave Armstrong, “Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact” []


[23] Dave Armstrong, “Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact” []


[24] Bainton, 298.


[25] Dave Armstrong, The Orthodox vs. The Heterodox Luther []


[26] Dave Armstrong, “The Protestant Revolt: It’s Tragic Initial Impact” []


[27] Dave Armstrong, “The Protestant Revolt: It’s Tragic Initial Impact” []


[28] Bainton, 292-293.


[29] Dave Armstrong, “My Alleged Pathetic Martin Luther Research, Luther Bashing, & Dishonesty” []